2023:JHHC:35606 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6024 of 2025 M/s Jaishiv Construction Pvt. Ltd, a body incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at, Bano Manzil Road, P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi-834001, through its Director, Yatindra Nath Singh, aged about 78 years son of Late Jinish Prasad Singh, resident of Bano Manzil Road, P.S.- Sukhdeo Nagar, P.O.- G.P.O., District- Ranchi-834001. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India, acting in the Premises, through Chief Administrative Officer, (CON), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, PO+ P.S.- Kotwali, Patna- 800004. 2. Chief Engineer, (CON), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat PS- Gandhi Maidan PO-GPO Patna- 800004. 3. Dy. Chief Engineer, (CON/I), East Central Railway, Hazaribagh, (Patna Road), near D.A.V School, Kenhari Hill Road PO+PS- Kenhari Hill, Hazaribagh-823501 … Respondents 4. Hon’ble Mrs. Jaya Roy (Retd.), the Sole Arbitrator having her office at, “Roy’s Compound’ PS-Daily Market PO-GPO Ranchi, Church Road, Ranchi-834001, Jharkhand. … Performa Respondent ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Nirupama, Advocate : Mr. Ashutosh Prasad Deo, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, C.G.C. --------- Order No.08/ Dated 16th January, 2026 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for extension of the period for Publication of the Award in terms of Sub Section- (5) of Section- 29 A, read with Sub section- (4) of Section 29 A of the Arbitration & Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, for three months from the date of communication of the Order to the learned Sole Arbitrator (Proforma Respondent No -4). 2023:JHHC:35606 2 2. A short conspectus of the facts of the case is that in 2006, the petitioner entered into a works contract with the Respondents, disputes arose in 2013, pursuant to which a three-member arbitral tribunal was constituted, which became defunct in the year 2016 during the pendency of the proceeding. Thereafter, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed before the High Court for the appointment of the arbitrator and the proforma Respondent no. 4 has been appointed as sole arbitrator by the High Court. While pleadings and arguments were underway, the sudden onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a nationwide lockdown effective from March 2020, however the court proceedings were conducted via video conferencing, although relaxations were introduced after certain period and during the same period, the mandate for the publication of award expired on 04.04.2020. Thereafter, the sole arbitrator extended the mandate for further period of one year vide order dated 19.09.2020. 3. The writ petition reveals that arbitral proceedings resumed in the year 2022 following multiple/several adjournments by both the parties and vide order dated 15.06.2022, the sole arbitrator sough the consent of parties for further extension of six months for publication of award. However, the petitioner agreed for the said extension, but the respondents withheld their consent. 4. The writ petition further reveals that the sole arbitrator observed in the order dated 14.08.2022 that the mandate for the publication of award had expired on 28.05.2022 and thus passing of the award thereafter would be rendered void, therefore, the sole arbitrator adjourned the proceedings directing the parties to seek a judicial extension of the mandate in pursuant to Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Hence, the present writ petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that delay is not attributable to the parties and the sudden onset of Pandemic Covid- 19 in March 2020, resulted into hearings via video conferencing which necessitated adjournments on several occasions due to unforeseen 2023:JHHC:35606 3 circumstances. To buttress the above contention, reliance was placed in Suo moto case of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 whereby the Apex court has held that the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall be excluded in computing periods of limitation and extended the period of limitation on account of Pandemic. Upon above premise, prayer for the extension of publication mandate for further period of three months is made. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents concurred with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that a supplementary affidavit dated 14.01.2026 has been filed wherein no objection for the extension of mandate has been submitted, in the interest of expeditious disposal of the arbitral proceedings. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that for the extension of mandate, a C.M.P being C.M.P -1050/2022 was filed, which got converted on the ground of maintainability, into writ petition being W.P(C) No. 6024 of 2025 vide order dated 16.10.2025 passed by this Court. 9. The petitioner has sought for the extension of time for publication of award in the instant writ petition, although the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal had already been expired. The above issue is now settled and no longer res integra, as held in the case of Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., reported in (2025) 10 SCC 802 wherein it was held that Section 29A (4) of the Act does not bar the filing of an extension application even after the arbitral mandate has lapsed as the termination of the mandate is only conditional and the power vest with the Court to grant an extension based on party autonomy. Thus, decision to extend the mandate in the light of Section 29A (5) of the Act is an exercise of discretion by the court and must be done on sufficient cause being shown. 2023:JHHC:35606 4 10. For considering whether there is a sufficient cause or not, this Court taking into account the events as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the timeline of 18 months started from the commencement of Section 29 A (1) of the Act on 23.10.2015 until the original arbitral tribunal became defunct on 24.02.2016, and thereafter appointment of the sole arbitrator on 05.04.2019 until the mandate of the Tribunal subsists, which was initially set to expire on 04.04.2020. Notably, the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 is anyways mandated to be excluded from periods of limitation in view of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra) and, as such, approx 14 months period is reckoned by this Court while computing the period of 18 months for the mandate of Award till 15.03.2020. The remainder of the 18 months period is reckoned from commencement of proceeding after 28.02.2022 in view of Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra), the mandate of award would have expired on 28.06.2022 but it was stated to have expired on 28.05.2022 (a month before the statutory time period). The order dated 14.08.2022 reveals that the date of pronouncement of Award was fixed for 12.06.2022 vide Order No. 86 dated 20.05.2022 and the arbitral proceeding is pending only for the pronouncement of the award. 11. Considering the above legal proposition and discussion made in the preceding paragraphs, the primary objective in rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism as contracted between the parties and therefore, ‘sufficient cause’ should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution. There is a statutory recognition of the power of the Court to step in wherever it is necessary to ensure that the process of resolution of the dispute is taken to its logical end, if according to the Court, the circumstances so warrant. The fact that the pandemic had commenced even before the expiry of 18 months and the matter is pending for pronouncement of the 2023:JHHC:35606 5 award only after excluding the period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (supra) and on the basis of formal consent for the extension of mandate as per the supplementary affidavit dated 14.01.2026 on behalf of Respondents, this Court is of considered view that there is sufficient cause for grant of the extension of time for the publication of award. Therefore, extension of three months for the Publication of award from the date of communication of this Order to the learned Sole Arbitrator (Proforma Respondent No -4), is hereby granted. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator (Proforma Respondent No -4) forthwith. 13. According, the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No.- 6024 of 2025 is hereby allowed. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) 16th January,2026 Suman/- N.A.F.R.