Calcutta High Court Upholds Arbitral Award by Retrospectively Extending Tribunal's Mandate Under Section 29A(4)

Background and Context

In a significant ruling touching upon the procedural integrity of arbitral proceedings, the Calcutta High Court addressed a petition filed by Hooghly Mills Company Limited seeking an extension of an arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The core question before the Court was whether the arbitral award, which had been passed after the expiry of the tribunal's last extended mandate, could be validated through a retrospective extension of that mandate.

The matter also raised an incidental but notable objection concerning the competence of the arbitrator to pass the award — an objection that the Court swiftly rejected on factual grounds.

Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and Chronology of Extensions

The Calcutta High Court had originally constituted the Arbitral Tribunal on 5 February 2021 to adjudicate the disputes between Hooghly Mills Company Limited and Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited. Following the completion of pleadings, the parties mutually consented to an extension of the tribunal's mandate by a further period of six months.

Thereafter, the mandate was extended on two separate occasions by the Court itself:

  1. Order dated 21 January 2025 — The mandate was extended by one year.
  2. Order dated 28 January 2026 — The mandate was further extended by six months.

The six-month extension granted on 28 January 2026 was the last such extension in the chain. Consequently, the mandate of the tribunal stood expired prior to the arbitrator publishing the award on 8 August 2026.

The Award and the Objection Regarding the Arbitrator's Elevation

The arbitral award was published on 8 August 2026 at 2:00 p.m. Senior Counsel Mr. Chowdhury, appearing for the petitioner Hooghly Mills Company Limited, brought this fact to the Court's notice.

Counsel for the respondent, Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited, raised an objection to the effect that the arbitrator, having since been elevated to the Bench of the Court, had become incompetent to pass the award and that its publication was accordingly invalid.

The Court rejected this objection unequivocally. The reasoning was straightforward and grounded in the factual timeline: