Court holds elevation of arbitrator to judicial office post-award does not invalidate award; retrospective extension under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 affirms award's validity despite expired mandate
In a significant judgment delivered on August 12, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Gaurang Kanth, upheld the validity of an arbitral award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted to resolve disputes between The Hooghly Mills Company Limited and Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited. The Court's decision clarifies two critical issues relating to arbitral proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - the retrospective extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal and the effect of an arbitrator's elevation to judicial office on the validity of the award.
The petitioner, The Hooghly Mills Company Limited, had sought an extension of the Arbitral Tribunal's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Tribunal was originally constituted by the Court's order dated February 5, 2021, and the mandate had been extended multiple times by consent of the parties and by the Court's orders dated January 21, 2025, and January 28, 2026. Despite these extensions, the mandate expired before the arbitral award was finally passed on August 8, 2026.
A point of contention raised by the respondent, Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited, was the arbitrator's competence to pass the award after having been elevated to the Bench. The Court dismissed this objection, noting that the arbitrator assumed judicial office at 4:15 p.m. on August 8, 2026, whereas the award was signed earlier that same day at 2:00 p.m. Hence, the elevation did not impact the validity of the award.
The Court found no undue delay in the arbitral proceedings and observed that no prejudice was caused to either party due to the expiration of the Tribunal's mandate prior to the award's passing. Exercising its power under Section 29A(4), the Court retrospectively extended the Tribunal's mandate from the date of expiry of the last extension up to and including August 8, 2026. This retrospective validation ensures the arbitral proceedings and the award are legally effective and binding.
This judgment reinforces the principle that Courts can use their discretionary powers to retrospectively validate arbitral proceedings to uphold the sanctity and finality of arbitral awards, provided no party suffers prejudice. It also clarifies that an arbitrator's elevation to judicial office after passing an award does not render the award invalid.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A(4) Retrospective extension of mandate of Arbitral Tribunal permissible to validate arbitral proceedings and award, even if the mandate had expired prior to the passing of the award, provided no prejudice is demonstrated by either party.
Statutory provision(s):
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 29A(4)
