C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera 2026 INSC 112 - S.29A Arbitration Act - Expiry Of Time
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996– Section 29A: An application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an award during that time. Such an award is ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and conditions as the situation demands. The Court will also take into account other factors such as reduction of the fee of the arbitrator under proviso to Section 29A(4) and also impose costs on parties if the fact situation so demands. Substitution is an option for the Court as the provision itself says, “it shall be open for the Court to substitute”, and it will be exercised carefully. If the mandate is extended, the arbitral tribunal will pick up the thread from where it was left, and seamlessly continue the proceeding from the stage at which the mandate had expired, and conclude within the time granted. (Para 23)
Interpretation of Statutes - While interpreting an enactment providing legal remedies for the resolution of disputes, a constitutional court has the obligation to ensure that the provision is: (a) accessible, (b) affordable, (c) expeditious and (d) cohesive. Accessibility requires the remedy to be easily available. Affordability is an aspect that is related to the cost of availing the remedy, it must be at a reasonable price. Expeditious nature of a remedy is concerned with the quick disposal and abhors unreasonable delays. Yet another facet of effective remedy is in its cohesiveness. (Para 22)
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name and neutral citation:C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera, 2026 INSC 112
Coram:Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment date:3 February 2026 (New Delhi)
Case laws and citations referred
- Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Berger Paints India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2494
- Ajay Protech Private Limited v. General Manager & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3381
- Suryadev Alloys & Power Private Ltd. v. Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7858
- Ayyasamy v. A. Shanmugavel, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4338
- RKEC Projects Limited v. Cochin Port Trust, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 4192
- Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2319
- Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, 2026 INSC 92
- State of West Bengal v. Associated Contractors, (2015) 1 SCC 32
- Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles & Ors., 2025 INSC 1409
- Alphamix Ltd v. District Council of Rivière du Rempart (Mauritius), [2023] UKPC 20
- Ting Kang Chung John v. Teo Hee Lai Building Constructions Pte Ltd., [2010] SGHC 20
- Oakland Metal Co Ltd v. D. Benaim & Co. Ltd, [1953] 2 QB 261
(Plus scholarly references: Law Commission of India 176th Report; Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration; Jeffrey Waincymer, Procedure and Evidence in International Arbitration; commentary on ICC Rules.)
Statutes / laws referred
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996– Section 2(1)(e) (definition of “Court”)– Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators)– Section 14 (termination of mandate; failure to act without undue delay)– Section 23(4) (completion of pleadings)– Section 29A (time limit for arbitral award, including sub‑sections (1)–(9))– Section 34 (setting aside of arbitral award)– Section 36 (enforcement of arbitral award)– Section 42 (jurisdiction of Court)
- Arbitration Act, 1940– Section 28– First Schedule (four‑month period for award)
- Indian Contract Act, 1872– Section 28
- Code of Civil Procedure, Mauritian Civil Procedure Code (comparative reference)
- ICC Arbitration Rules, Article 31 (time limit for final award)
