CEAT LimitedversusAditi Marketing

                                                         1/3             15-ARBP-388-2026 (OS).DOC


           Digitally
           signed by

MOHAMMAD
AREEB
           MOHAMMAD
           AREEB
           MOHD
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MOHD       AKBAR
AKBAR      Date:
           2026.08.10
           14:46:56
                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
           +0530




                                    ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 388 OF 2026
           Ceat Limited                                                               ...Petitioner
                        Versus
           Aditi Marketing                                                            ...Respondent
                                                      _______
           Mr. Zerick Dastur a/w Ms. Archana U. for the Petitioner.
                                                      _______
                                            CORAM         :      ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                            DATE          :      6th AUGUST, 2026


           P.C.


           1.           The present Petition is filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and

           Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral

           Tribunal.

           2.           Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has placed reliance

           upon an Affidavit of Service to establish service upon the Respondent. The

           Affidavit of Service shall be filed in the Registry.

           3.           Learned Counsel further submits that the Respondent did not appear at

           any stage of the arbitral proceedings. He further submits that the arbitral award

           has since been published.

           4.           It is submitted that the statutory period of one year expired on 20 th April

           2026, whereas the arbitral award came to be published on 8 th June 2026.

           Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

           Court in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera in support of the proposition that, even in



           Areeb
                                               2/3                15-ARBP-388-2026 (OS).DOC



such circumstances, this Court is empowered to extend the mandate of the

Arbitral Tribunal in the interests of justice.

5.      In support of his contention, learned Counsel has invited my attention to

paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the aforesaid decision, which read thus:

           “21. In view of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that provisions of
           the Act, particularly Section 29A, must not be interpreted to infer a
           threshold bar for an application under Section 29A(5) for extension of the
           mandate of the arbitrator even when an award is passed, though after the
           expiry of the mandate.

           22. While interpreting an enactment providing legal remedies for the
           resolution of disputes, a constitutional court has the obligation to ensure
           that the provision is: (a) accessible, (b) affordable, (c) expeditious and (d)
           cohesive. Accessibility requires the remedy to be easily available25.
           Affordability is an aspect that is related to the cost of availing the remedy, it
           must be at a reasonable price. Expeditious nature of a remedy is concerned
           with the quick disposal and abhors unreasonable delays. Yet another facet
           of effective remedy is in its cohesiveness.

           23. In conclusion, we hold that an application under Section 29A(5) for
           extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is maintainable even after the
           expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering
           of an award during that time. Such an award is ineffective and
           unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not
           impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the
           application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for
           extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and
           conditions as the situation demands. The Court will also take into account
           other factors such as reduction of the fee of the arbitrator under proviso to
           Section 29A(4) and also impose costs on parties if the fact situation so
           demands. Substitution is an option for the Court as the provision itself says,
           "it shall be open for the Court to substitute", and it will be exercised
           carefully. If the mandate is extended, the arbitral tribunal will pick up the
           thread from where it was left, and seamlessly continue the proceeding
           from the stage at which the mandate had expired, and conclude within the
           time granted.”


6.      Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and having noted



Areeb
                                       3/3            15-ARBP-388-2026 (OS).DOC



that, despite service, the Respondent has remained absent, I am of the view that

the Petition deserves to be allowed. The Petition is accordingly allowed in terms

of prayer clause (a).




                                                [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Areeb