Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 · Chapter VI
Section 29A: Time limit for arbitral award
[(1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23:
Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavor may be made to dispose of the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.]
(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.
(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.
(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period:
Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent. for each month of such delay.
[Provided further that where an application under sub-section (5) is pending, the mandate of the arbitrator shall continue till the disposal of the said application:
Provided also that the arbitrator shall be given an opportunity of being heard before the fees is reduced.]
(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court.
(6) While extending the period referred to in sub-section (4), it shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the evidence and material already on record, and the arbitrator(s) appointed under this section shall be deemed to have received the said evidence and material.
(7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal.
(8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section.
(9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party.
State amendments to this section
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh (UTs).—
Amendment of sections 29A.— (a) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:—
"(1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment.";
(b) in sub-section (4), omit second and third provisos.
[Vide the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, notification No. S.O. 1123(E) dated (18-3-2020) and Vide Union Territory of Ladakh Reorganisation (Adaptation of Central Laws) Order, 2020, notification No. S.O. 3774(E), dated (23-10-2020).]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 16 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 29A
-
Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. M/s Bharat Textiles & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court declining substitution of a sole arbitrator, however, extending his mandate u/s.29A(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
-
Il & Fs Financial Services Limited v. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Private Limited
Whether the Tribunals below were justified in holding that the s.7 application under the IBC filed by the appellant on 15.01.2024 was barred by time; does the entry in the Balance Sheet of F.Y. 2019-20 constitute a…
-
M/s Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr.
Issue arose as to whether the application for extension can be entertained if it is filed after the expiry of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate; and whether the application filed u/s.29A(4) of the Arbitration and…
-
Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger Paints India Limited
Whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed after the expiry of the period for making of the arbitral award.
-
V.S. Palanivel v. P. Sriram, CS, Liquidator, Etc.
(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in accepting the view taken by the Adjudicating Authority that Covid-19 lockdown was a valid reason for extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration; (ii) Whether the…
-
Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors.
Whether the appellants made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay on the grounds of subsequent change of law brought in by Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [2018] 2 SCR 1 and Indore Development…
-
M/S Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. M/S Aptech Ltd.
Whether the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to an application for appointment of arbitrator u/s.11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; if yes, whether the present petition is barred by limitation; when does…
-
Aditya Khaitan & Ors. v. Il and Fs Financial
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application for extension of time dated 20.01.2021 and in not taking the written statements on record.
- Tata Sons Pvt Ltd (Formerly Tata Sons Ltd) v. Siva Industries
- National Highway Authority of India v. Transstroy (India) Limited
- Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Limited
- In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitationmiscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 in (Smw (C) No. 3 of 2020) v. .
- In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation v. .
- Haryana Space Application Centre (Harsac) & Anr. v. M/S Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd.
- M/S Deep Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr.