Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate Not Automatically Terminated After Deadline: J&K & Ladakh High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has reiterated that an arbitral tribunal does not permanently lose its authority merely because the deadline to pass an award has expired, holding that proceedings can continue if the Court later extends the time.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd. observed:

"it is clear that expiry of stipulated time period for making award only makes the Arbitral Tribunal functus officio but not in absolute terms. It is clear that termination of arbitral mandate is conditional upon the non-filing of an application and if, after the expiry of stipulated time for making the award, an application is made for extension of time for making the awardby any of the parties, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal would not terminate in a case where the Court grants such application"

The ruling came in a dispute between a contractor and the J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency (ERA), where the agency argued that the tribunal's mandate had terminated after the statutory time limit expired.

The arbitral tribunal had entered a reference on November 16, 2022. After one year, the ERA contended that since no application for extension had been filed either by the parties or by the Court within time, the tribunal could not continue. The tribunal rejected this objection on April 20, 2024, leading the ERA to challenge the order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The court held that expiry of the time period does not result in an irreversible termination of the mandate and that courts retain the power to extend time even after the deadline has passed.

At the same time, the Court clarified that the arbitral tribunal should not have proceeded with the matter after expiry of the statutory period.

"This Court has recorded that the learned Arbitral Tribunal should not have proceeded in the matter once the time period for making the award had expired on 16.11.2023, therefore, it would have been in the fitness of things for the learned Arbitral Tribunal to wait for the parties to approach the Court for extension of time in making the arbitral award and the decision thereon from this Court."

The court also noted that the interim stay on the arbitral proceedings had been granted only to prevent continuation without extension and could not survive once the time had been extended.

Since the court had already, by its order dated December 9, 2025, extended the time for making the award, it held that the challenge to the tribunal's order had become infructuous.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition, vacated the interim stay, and permitted the arbitral tribunal to proceed. The three-month period for making the award would now commence from the date of the present judgment.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Z.A. Shah, Advocate S.N. Ratanpuri,

For Respondents: Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA