- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4927 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. NITIN KANJI SHAH SON OF LATE KANJI DEVSHI SHAH. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PARTNER OF SHALIMAR AGARBATTI CO., SHALIMAR HOUSE, 32 AND 33, 3 CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE 560 021 PRESENTLY R/AT NO 7, 'KUNAL', 1ST FLOOR, UPPER PIPE LINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH S AND CO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. ALKESH VINOD SHAH S/O. VINOD KANJI SHAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS PARTNER OF SHALIMAR AGARBATTI CO., AT 'SHALIMAR HOUSE' 32 AND 33, 3RD CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 2. MR. VINOD KANJI SHAH. SON OF LATE KANIJI DEVSHI SHAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS PARTNER OF SHALIMAR AGARBATTI CO. AT 'SHALIMAR HOUSE' 32 AND 33, 3RD CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021. 3. M/S. SHALIMAR AGARBATTI COMPANY, SHALIMAR HOUSE, NO.32 AND 33, 3D CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE-560021 REPRESENTED BY IT'S PARTNER MR.ALLKESH VINOD SHAH COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 4. M/S VKS INCENSE PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT SHALIMAR HOUSE. NO.32 AND 33,3D CROSS, SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE-560021 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. ALKESH VINOD SHAH COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BALA NIKIT., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. VARUN S., ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 09.01.2025 VIDE ANNX-F IN COM.A.A 439/2024 PASSED BY THE LXXXVI ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT (CCH-88) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 BANGALORE AND EXTEND THE MANDATE OF THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS IN CMP NO. 246/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PENDING BEFORE LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA (RETRD) FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS FROM 17.12.2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Court in Com.A.A. No.439/2024, whereby the Court, while considering an application under Section 29(a)(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act'), has extended the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator only for a period of two months. 2. The petitioner is a partner of respondent No.3/firm. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the arbitration clause was invoked, culminating in initiation of arbitral proceedings in CMP No.246/2017 before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 learned Sole Arbitrator. Records disclose that the arbitral proceedings commenced as early as on 17.01.2018 and pleadings were completed. However, thereafter, the proceedings did not progress in a time-bound manner. 3. It is not in dispute that the proceedings were affected during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and the parties were simultaneously exploring settlement. The mandate of the Arbitrator has been extended on multiple occasions by approaching the competent Courts. The material on record would indicate that initially, extension was granted by order dated 08.07.2019 in A.A.No.161/2019. Thereafter, repeated extensions were sought and granted on as many as eight occasions. The last extension granted by this Court expired on 17.06.2024. Thereafter, the parties were relegated to approach the appropriate forum, leading to filing of proceedings before the Commercial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 4. The Commercial Court, by the impugned order dated 09.01.2025, while noticing the prolonged pendency of arbitral proceedings for nearly eight years, granted only two months’ extension, which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no deliberate delay attributable to the petitioner. Several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner (including applications for interim award, expert valuation, and production of documents) were rejected and are subject matter of challenge in pending proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that the Commercial Court erred in restricting the extension to two months and further erred in placing restrictions on seeking future extensions. The evidence on both sides has already been concluded and only arguments remain. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and contend that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 arbitral proceedings have been unnecessarily prolonged for over eight years and repeated extensions defeat the very object of Section 29(a) of the Act. Therefore, the respondents are suffering prejudice and financial hardship on account of the delay. 7. This Court has carefully considered the submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The scope of Section 29(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is to ensure that arbitral proceedings are concluded within a time-bound framework, so as to uphold the legislative intent of expeditious dispute resolution. The chronology of events in the present case would unmistakably demonstrate that the arbitral proceedings commenced in the year 2017 and pleadings were completed at an early stage. Despite this, the matter has not culminated in an award even after eight years and the mandate of the Arbitrator has been extended repeatedly by different Courts. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 9. While certain delay can be attributed to external circumstances such as COVID-19 pandemic, the records would also indicate that the parties were engaged in filing multiple interlocutory applications, challenges to such orders were carried to appellate forums and the proceedings were intermittently stalled on account of such litigative steps. 10. The conduct of the parties, therefore, clearly reflects lack of due diligence in ensuring expeditious completion of arbitral proceedings, which runs contrary to the very spirit of arbitration. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that evidence on both sides has already been completed, cross-examination of witnesses, including that of respondent No.4 and expert witness, stands concluded and the proceedings are at the stage of final arguments. 11. In that view of the matter, termination of the mandate at this stage would result in serious prejudice and would render the entire arbitral exercise futile. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 12. The Commercial Court, while passing the impugned order, has taken note of the prolonged pendency of proceedings, the repeated extensions granted earlier and the undertaking of the parties to proceed with arguments without awaiting outcome of pending proceedings. 13. The grant of only two months’ extension by the Commercial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary, particularly in light of the history of the case. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that even the said two-month period has since expired, and the arbitral proceedings have not culminated in an award. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that while the parties cannot be permitted to indefinitely prolong arbitral proceedings, at the same time, the proceedings which are at the fag end ought not to be rendered infructuous. Balancing the equities and in order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 to subserve the ends of justice, a final opportunity deserves to be granted. 15. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is disposed of; (ii) The order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Court in Com.A.A.No.439/2024 vide Annexure-F is modified to a limited extent; (iii) The mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator in CMP No.246/2017 is extended for a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) It is made abundantly clear that no further extension shall be granted under any circumstances; (v) Both parties shall fully cooperate with the arbitral proceedings and shall address final arguments without seeking adjournments; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19588 WP No. 4927 of 2025 (vi) The learned Sole Arbitrator shall make all endeavours to pronounce the award within the extended period. (vii) It is further observed that any non- cooperation by either of the parties shall be viewed seriously and may entail appropriate orders, including costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98