$~60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010232162026 + O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 401/2026 TPF ENGINEERING PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri and Mr. Harshit Kiran, Advs. versus MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Dashmesh Tripathi and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey and Mr. Sawan Kumar Shukla, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. This petition is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator. 2. The brief facts are that the parties to the lis agreed for dispute resolution through arbitration and the arbitration was invoked at the instance of the petitioner. The arbitrator was appointed by this court on 17.08.2022. The appointment was challenged by the respondent by filing a special leave petition which was dismissed on 15.04.2024. The parties with mutual consent extended the mandate of the arbitrator by six months under Section This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 10:25:21 29(3) of the Act. The mandate was to expire on 15.05.2026 and the petition was filed on 13.05.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the arbitration is at the advanced stage and the award is reserved. The submission is that the pleadings were completed in November, 2024 and thereafter the adducing of evidence and cross-examination took time. Consequently, the parties with mutual consent extended the time for six months. The prayer is that the mandate of the arbitrator be extended for three months so that the award can be pronounced. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer and contends that the extension of the mandate cannot be granted on mere asking and there has to be a sufficient cause. The submission is that the arbitral tribunal has wrongly fixed the fee vis-a-vis the claims and counter- claims filed by the parties. 5. Under Section 29A(5) of the Act, this court for a sufficient cause can extend the mandate of the tribunal. The time period of challenge to the appointment of the arbitrator and dismissal of the SLP on 15.04.2024 is to be counted for. It cannot be lost sight of that the pleadings were completed in November, 2024 and the adducing of the evidence and cross-examination of the witnesses took time, the parties consented to extension of the mandate on 11.07.2025 and the arbitration is at the final stage, the award is reserved. There is a sufficient cause for extending the mandate of the tribunal. 6. The grievance of the learned counsel for the respondent regarding the fixation of the arbitral fee cannot be gone into at this stage. 7. Consequently, the period from expiry of the mandate till date is regularised and the mandate is extended for three months from today. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 10:25:21 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/Pa This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2026 at 10:25:21