Hemant Aggarwal Vs. M/s V. Care Biotech and Others. Item No. (D-22) OMP No.604 of 2026 in Arb. Case No.622 of 2023 24.07.2026 Present: Mr. Shivay, Advocate, for Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for the applicants-respondents. OMP No.604 of 2026 The present application under Section 29-A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed by the applicant-petitioner seeking an extension of the Arbitrator's mandate for a further period of six months. 2. In the said application, it has been averred that the mandate was last extended on 09.01.2026 until 30.06.2026 and since then, 17 sittings have been held. The evidence of the claimant was tendered by way of an affidavit, and on that date, cross-examination of the claimant was partly concluded, following which the matter was adjourned to 01.04.2026 for further cross-examination. 3. On 01.04.2026, a Power of Attorney was filed by the counsel for respondent No.5 and the matter was subsequently adjourned to 10.04.2026, consequently, the proceedings could not be concluded. Furthermore, Respondent No. 5 had moved an application, which was opposed by filing a reply. It has been submitted that substantial time has elapsed since the issue of transposition arose, and no valid grounds have been made out to oppose the extension. 4. Counsel for the applicant-petitioner, on the other hand, has relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Another, (2024) SCC Online SC 3381, wherein it was held that the primary objective of rendering an arbitral award is to resolve disputes through the agreed dispute resolution mechanism contracted by the parties. Therefore, ‘sufficient cause’ should be interpreted in the context of facilitating effective dispute resolution. 5. In the present case, it has been noticed that the appointment was made on 06.12.2024, and as mentioned above, the proceedings have now reached an advanced stage. 6. A similar view has also been taken in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited (2024) SCC Online SC 2494, wherein, it was held that the power of the Court to extend time is to be exercised only when there is sufficient cause, and such an extension should not be granted mechanically upon the mere filing of an application. 7. Accordingly, the mandate of the Arbitrator is extended till 31.12.2026 to conclude the Arbitral proceedings. Therefore, the present application is allowed. 8. It is made clear that no further applications for extension will be entertained. 9. The application stands disposed off accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice 24th July, 2026 (Munish Thakur)