Bombay High Court

Umesh SarkarversusKEC International Limited

Decided: 25 June 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ARIF S DOCTOR

Holding

The Court held that, under Section 29-A, a time extension may be granted when the petitioner demonstrates progress and there is no opposition, and therefore allowed the extension.

Summary

The petitioner, Umesh Sarkar, filed a Commercial Arbitration Petition under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an extension of the mandate of the sole arbitrator in the pending arbitration. The petition asserted that this was the first request for an extension and that substantial progress had already been made in the arbitration proceedings. The respondent, Kec International Limited, did not oppose the extension. The Court examined whether the statutory provision allowed a time extension without opposition. Finding no procedural impediment and noting the progress made, the Court granted the extension. The order extended the arbitration timeline from the date the order was uploaded.

Issues considered

What is the scope of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the extension of an arbitrator's mandate?
Is the absence of opposition from the respondent sufficient for the Court to grant an extension?

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 29-A

Subjects

Arbitration
Extension of time
Section 29-A
Commercial arbitration
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                            1/1            23-CARBP-736-2026 (OS).DOC




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


               COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 736 OF 2026
Umesh Sarkar                                                              ...Petitioner
          Versus
Kec International Limited                                                 ...Respondent
                                         _______
Ms. Gayatri Devendra i/b Lalit Jain, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. Kalbere a/w Mr. Anuj Athalye i/b Legasis Partners, for the Respondent.
                                         _______


                                                  CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                                  DATE    : 25th JUNE, 2026


P.C.
1.        The captioned Petition is filed under the provisions of Section 29-A of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the

Arbitral proceedings pending before the learned Sole Arbitrator. I am informed

that this is the first extension for time and that substantial progress has been

made in the arbitration proceedings. There is no opposition to the time being

extended.

2.        Hence, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

3.        Time is extended from the date on which a copy of this order is uploaded.




                                                                  [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Vaibhav

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Gayatri Devendra