Arbitral Mandate Can Be Extended After Expiry; No Limitation Prescribed: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has recently reiterated that applications seeking extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate can be filed even after expiry of the prescribed period and that courts must adopt a liberal approach while considering whether sufficient cause exists for granting such extensions.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited and its own earlier ruling in Chidepudi Bhanu Srivastava v. Kancharla Subrahmanyam, a Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli held:

"it is settled position in law that the application for extension of time for Arbitral Mandate under Section 29A of the Act, 1996 can be filed before the expiry of the period of mandate and also thereafter and the court has to record sufficient reasons for extension of the mandate as to why Arbitral Award could not be made within the mandated period. It is also settled that 'sufficient cause' has to be construed liberally so as to enable to give the mandate."

The ruling came while allowing a revision petition filed by Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi and setting aside a Commercial Court order that had rejected her application seeking an extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate in a dispute with Sree Constructions and its managing partner Chalasani Sridhar.

The dispute arose from arbitration proceedings relating to flats in the "KAR Sree Brindhavanam" project.

Lakshmi had obtained an interim injunction from the XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada on August 9, 2021 restraining alienation of certain flats and directing the parties to proceed to arbitration. A sole arbitrator was thereafter appointed pursuant to a joint memo filed by the parties.

According to the record, the arbitral proceedings were affected by Covid-19 conditions, an interim application filed before the tribunal and changes of counsel on behalf of the claimant. The tribunal conducted 36 sittings up to September 25, 2023 and a further 51 sittings until March 6, 2024.

As the arbitral proceedings were not completed within the available period, Lakshmi sought extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate.

The Commercial Court rejected the application on July 31, 2025, holding that the period sought to be extended had already expired and that the claimant had not furnished reasons for the delay in approaching the court.

Challenging that order, Lakshmi contended that an application for extension of the arbitral mandate could be filed even after expiry of the prescribed period. The respondents argued that the application had become infructuous.

The High Court held that the Commercial Court had adopted an unduly technical approach in rejecting the application.

The bench observed, "The view taken is too technical which does not advance the cause of justice."

The court further concluded that an extension of time was warranted.

The bench observed, "There was sufficient cause, in totality of the facts and circumstances, in which the arbitral award could not be given in total 18 months period. The time deserved to be extended"

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order and extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by six months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

For Petitioner (Gali Radha Bhagya Lakshmi): Advocate Javvaji Sarath Chandra.

For Respondents (Sree Constructions and Chalasani Sridhar): Advocate A. Padmanabham.