Best Arbitration Taking Too Long? Extension or Termination of the Arbitrator's Time Lawyer

The Arbitration Act puts a clock on arbitrations. For domestic cases, Section 29A requires the award within 12 months from the date the pleadings are completed. The parties can agree to extend this by up to six months. After that, the arbitrator's mandate terminates unless a court extends it. The court can extend for sufficient cause, can reduce the arbitrator's fees if the tribunal caused the delay, and can substitute one or all of the arbitrators.

This page is for parties whose arbitration is running out of time, or has already run past the deadline. In short: keep track of the date the pleadings were completed; agree a six-month extension in writing before the 12 months end if needed; and if more time is required, apply to the court promptly. After the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Jagdeep Chowgule, the application goes to the court defined in Section 2(1)(e), which may be a district commercial court, not the High Court that appointed the arbitrator.

Missing the deadline does not end your claim, but it can stall the arbitration until a court acts. Planning ahead avoids that.

Is this your situation?

How Section 29A works

Which court decides: Jagdeep Chowgule (2026)

Before 2026, there was confusion about where to file a Section 29A application, particularly where the arbitrator had been appointed by a High Court under Section 11. Some parties filed in the High Court that appointed the arbitrator; others filed in the district court.

In Jagdeep Chowgule v Sheela Chowgule (January 2026), the Supreme Court held that the "Court" for Section 29A is the court defined in Section 2(1)(e): the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, including a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The High Court's Section 11 role ends once the tribunal is constituted, and extension or substitution under Section 29A is not an appointment. In Viva Highways v MPRDC (February 2026), the Court applied the same reasoning to substitution, and said substitution does not automatically follow termination of the mandate.

So for a Delhi-seated arbitration of ₹1 crore, the application goes to the Delhi district commercial court; for ₹3 crore, to the Delhi High Court's commercial division. For a Noida-seated arbitration, to the commercial court at Gautam Buddh Nagar, at any value. For international commercial arbitrations, Section 29A's limit is only an endeavour, so the question usually does not arise.

How to handle an expiring mandate

Time and typical cost range

Our fees are agreed in writing at the start and are not linked to the outcome.

Documents needed

Where to apply

Applying after the mandate has expired

A common question is whether an application can be filed after the 12 or 18 months have already passed. In Rohan Builders (India) v Berger Paints India (2024), the Supreme Court held that it can. The words "prior to or after the expiry of the period" in Section 29A(4) allow an application after expiry, and the court can extend the mandate if sufficient cause is shown.

But the court will look closely at why the application was not filed earlier. Long unexplained delay after expiry weighs against extension. And in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board v Saryu Plastics (May 2026), the Supreme Court held that a party who participated without objection after the arbitrator extended the mandate unilaterally and after it had expired could not later challenge the award on that ground. That case shows the risks on both sides: the arbitrator cannot extend alone, but a party who stays silent may lose the objection.

Fee reductions and substitution

Section 29A(4) allows the court, while extending the mandate, to order a reduction of the arbitrators' fees by up to 5% for each month of delay, if it finds the delay attributable to the tribunal. This is a real incentive for arbitrators to keep cases moving. The court should give the arbitrator an opportunity to be heard before reducing fees.

Section 29A(6) allows the court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators while extending time. The substituted tribunal continues from the stage already reached, using the evidence and material on record, and is deemed to be in receipt of that material. In Viva Highways (2026), the Supreme Court said substitution is for cases where circumstances warrant it, not automatic.

Laws that apply

How we work

We are a litigation and advisory practice led by Advocate BK Singh, with offices in Dwarka (New Delhi) and Vaishali (Ghaziabad). This is what you can expect:

• Date tracking: pleadings, 12 months, extensions, all in the diary.
• Right court: applications filed in the Section 2(1)(e) court.
• Clear reasons: a timeline that explains the delay honestly.
• Substitution where needed: for a stalled tribunal.
• Written fee terms: agreed stage by stage, never linked to the outcome.

Mistakes with Section 29A

When does the clock start? Completion of pleadings

The 12-month period runs from "the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23". In practice, that is usually the date the last pleading allowed by the tribunal was filed: the respondent's reply to a counter-claim, or the claimant's rejoinder. If the tribunal allows further pleadings or amendments later, parties sometimes argue that the date moves. Tribunals and courts generally look at the date the pleadings were actually completed.

Record the date in a procedural order. Ask the tribunal at the stage pleadings close to note the date and the resulting deadline, and the deadline after any consent extension. This removes arguments later and helps everyone plan.

Consent extensions: doing it properly

The six-month extension under Section 29A(3) requires the parties' consent. Record it in a written document signed by both parties or their authorised representatives, stating the new deadline. A recital in the tribunal's minutes that "the parties agree to extend" is common, but a separate signed consent is safer, especially where one party later changes its position.

An arbitrator cannot extend the mandate unilaterally. If the tribunal's order says it is extending time without the parties' written consent or a court order, object in writing at once. If you participate without objecting, you may be held to have accepted it, as in Saryu Plastics (2026).

What the court looks for in an extension application

Section 29A(5) says the court can extend only for sufficient cause and on such terms as it may impose. Courts consider the stage of the proceedings, the reasons for delay, who caused it, the prejudice to each party, and whether the arbitration can realistically be completed within the extended period. An arbitration close to the award stage, delayed by an arbitrator's illness or by the pandemic, is likely to be extended. An arbitration that has hardly progressed after years, because of a disengaged tribunal, may be extended with a substitute arbitrator.

Courts have also considered the public policy that arbitrations should not collapse at an advanced stage merely because of a missed deadline. Most applications that are made with reasons and a realistic timetable are granted.

Objecting to extension

Sometimes a party opposes extension: because the tribunal has been biased or ineffective, or because it wants the arbitration to end and the claim to lapse. Courts rarely refuse extension outright if the claim is genuine, because the claimant would otherwise have to start again. But they may substitute the arbitrator, reduce fees or impose strict timetables.

If you oppose extension because of the tribunal's conduct, ask for substitution rather than termination of the whole process. If you oppose because the claimant has been dilatory, ask the court to impose terms, such as costs or a short final deadline.

Delays in MSME council arbitrations

Section 18(5) of the MSMED Act requires every reference to the Facilitation Council to be decided within 90 days of the reference. The consequences of missing this have been debated, and the Supreme Court has not treated the 90-day period as making the council's later award void. Section 29A's 12-month limit may also apply to council arbitrations through the Arbitration Act. Councils that are slow can be asked, through a writ petition, to decide within a fixed time. See MSEFC conciliation and arbitration.

Planning to avoid the problem

Most Section 29A problems can be avoided by planning. At the first procedural meeting, agree a timetable that works back from the 12-month deadline after pleadings: dates for documents, witness statements, expert reports, hearings and submissions, with a target date for the award. Block hearing dates in advance. Build in a margin for adjournments. Agree a six-month consent extension early if the timetable shows it will be needed, rather than at the last minute.

If one side repeatedly seeks adjournments, ask the tribunal to record who is causing the delay. That record matters if a court later considers extension, fees and costs.

Section 29A in international commercial arbitrations

After the 2019 amendment, the 12-month time limit in Section 29A(1) applies to domestic arbitrations. For international commercial arbitrations seated in India, the subsection says only that the award "may be made as expeditiously as possible" and that an endeavour may be made to dispose of the matter within 12 months from the completion of pleadings. In practice, this means that the mandate of a tribunal in an international commercial arbitration does not terminate automatically after 12 or 18 months, and the court's extension powers under Section 29A(4) are not needed in the same way.

Check whether your arbitration is an "international commercial arbitration" under Section 2(1)(f): at least one party must be a foreign national, a body corporate incorporated outside India, an association whose central management and control is outside India, or a foreign government. A company incorporated in India with foreign shareholders does not qualify (TDM Infrastructure, 2008).

Effect of the time limit on the arbitrator's fees

Section 29A(2) provides that if the award is made within six months of the tribunal entering upon the reference, the arbitrator is entitled to such additional fees as the parties may agree. More importantly for parties, the proviso to Section 29A(4) allows the court, when extending the mandate, to order a reduction of the arbitrator's fees by up to 5% for each month of delay, if it finds that the delay is attributable to the tribunal.

When applying for an extension, consider whether the delay was caused by the parties, such as multiple adjournment requests, late documents or amendments, or by the tribunal, such as long gaps between hearings or a reserved award not delivered. If the latter, ask the court to consider fee reduction or, in a clear case, substitution of the arbitrator under Section 29A(6). Evidence from the procedural orders and minutes makes the request credible.

Proceedings continue during the extension application

Section 29A(4) provides that if an application for extension is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator continues until the application is disposed of. This means that if an application is filed before the mandate expires, the tribunal can continue hearings while the court decides. If the application is filed after expiry, the position is governed by Rohan Builders (2024), and the tribunal should usually pause until the court extends the mandate.