In Brief
Rohan Builders sought clarification on whether a party can apply for extension of time to make an arbitral award after the statutory deadline has passed. The High Court of Calcutta had ruled that applications must be filed before expiry of the arbitrator's mandate. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that applications for extension under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are maintainable even after expiry of the twelve or eighteen-month period. The Court reasoned that the statute's language—\"either prior to or after expiry\"—plainly permits post-expiry applications. The word \"terminate\" must be read with the qualifying clause \"unless the court has extended,\" making termination conditional, not absolute. The Court's discretion to grant extension only for \"sufficient cause\" and to impose costs protects against abuse. This interpretation aligns with the statute's purpose: facilitating efficient arbitration rather than impeding it.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.