Judicial Divergence On Section 29A Of The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: A Critical Analysis
- IJLLR Journal
- Aug 23
- 2 min read
Kashish Khanna, IILM University, Gurugram
Introduction
Arbitration, a flexible alternative dispute resolution process where a third-party arbitrator's binding decision resolves disputes, is a cornerstone of efficient legal recourse in India. However, the efficacy of this process, particularly concerning the timely conclusion of proceedings, has been subject to evolving judicial interpretations. This document critically analyzes recent judicial pronouncements, specifically focusing on the divergent applications of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the extension of arbitral mandates. The aim is to highlight the complexities and uncertainties currently embedded within this crucial aspect of Indian arbitration law.
Arbitration has steadily emerged as an important mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in India, offering parties a faster, less formal and more cost-efficient alternative to traditional court litigation. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, was enacted to bring India’s dispute resolution framework closer to international standards. Over time, a series of amendments and judicial pronouncements have attempted to strengthen this framework and reinforce arbitration as a reliable choice for both domestic and international parties. One of the most significant reforms was the introduction of timebound arbitration through Section 29A in the 2015 Amendment, which reflected the legislature’s intent to address delays that often hampered the effectiveness of the process.
Section 29A sets clear timelines for the completion of arbitration proceedings. It requires that an arbitral award be delivered within twelve months from the date the tribunal enters upon reference, with a further sixmonth extension available through the mutual agreement of the parties. If this period lapses, the mandate of the tribunal automatically comes to an end unless a court grants an extension. While this provision was designed to ensure efficiency and discipline, its implementation has led to differing interpretations by courts, which has created uncertainty for both arbitrators and parties involved.
