Last Updated: March 2026 | LegalFund India — Pan India | ~5 min read
📌 Quick Answer Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sets a 12-month deadline (extendable to 18 months) for passing an arbitral award. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in C. Velusamy vs. K Indhera (2026) held that a court can retrospectively extend an arbitrator’s mandate — even after an award is passed beyond the statutory deadline. This has created serious uncertainty about when such awards can be challenged and whether they are enforceable at all.
📌 Section 29A — Quick Summary
- Section 29A — 12-month deadline to pass arbitral award (2015 Amendment)
- Extendable by 6 months with party consent — maximum 18 months total
- After 18 months without award — tribunal mandate terminates under Section 29A(4)
- Court can extend mandate under Section 29A(5) on application by either party
- Velusamy (2026) — SC held post-award extension is maintainable retrospectively
- Rohan Builders (2024) — extension allowed even after statutory period expired
- Section 34 challenge — 3-month window creates uncertainty for post-mandate awards
- Award passed after mandate expiry — unenforceable but not void per Velusamy
The Story Behind the Confusion
Arjun won an arbitral award for ₹2.4 crore. Clean case. Strong evidence. His counterparty immediately challenged the award — not on the merits — but on a single technical ground: the arbitrator passed the award three months after the 18-month statutory deadline under Section 29A had expired.
Was the award valid or void?
Under the old reading — the award was dead. Mandate terminated. Award unenforceable. Arjun would need to restart the entire arbitration.
Under the Velusamy (2026) reading — the award might be saved. If the court grants a retrospective extension of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(5) — the award becomes enforceable.
But here is the problem nobody warned Arjun about:
Should he challenge the award under Section 34 within 3 months — or wait to see if the mandate gets extended first?
The Supreme Court didn’t answer that question. And that silence is costing parties across India enormous uncertainty.
Understanding Section 29A — The Timeline Law
Section 29A was introduced by the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration Act — specifically to end India’s culture of never-ending arbitrations that defeated the entire purpose of choosing arbitration over courts.
The Section 29A Timeline:
| Stage | Timeline |
|---|---|
| Award must be passed from date arbitrator enters reference | 12 months |
| Extension by party consent | +6 months |
| Maximum statutory timeline | 18 months total |
| After 18 months without award | Mandate terminates under Section 29A(4) |
| Court can extend on application | Section 29A(5) — either party can apply |
The purpose was simple: Force arbitrations to conclude on time. Prevent the same delay culture that made civil courts infamous from infecting arbitration.
The problem: What happens when the award is passed — but after the deadline?
The Two Critical Judgments — And Why They Conflict
Rohan Builders vs Berger Paints (2024) — Supreme Court
No award had been passed yet. The tribunal’s 18-month mandate had technically expired. The SC held — the mandate can still be extended even after the statutory period, allowing the tribunal to proceed and make an award.
What it decided: Extension of mandate before award = allowed even after 18 months.
C. Velusamy vs K Indhera (2026) — Supreme Court
The award had already been passed — after the mandate had terminated. The SC held — a Section 29A(5) application for extension is maintainable even after the award is delivered, and such extension can operate retrospectively to validate the award.
What it decided: Extension of mandate after award = also allowed, retrospectively.
Why this creates conflict:
Rohan Builders and Velusamy operate at completely different procedural stages. Rohan Builders dealt with extending time before an award — Velusamy dealt with validating an award already passed without authority. The Court used Rohan Builders to justify Velusamy — but the two situations are fundamentally different.
The Uncertainty Velusamy Created — Four Critical Problems
Problem 1: Is the Award Valid, Invalid, or Something In Between?
The Velusamy Court said an award passed after mandate expiry is:
- Not automatically void
- Unenforceable under Section 36 until court extends the mandate
- Not necessarily challengeable under Section 34
This creates a legal grey zone. The award exists. It cannot be enforced. But it may not need to be challenged under Section 34. What exactly is its status?
Problem 2: The Section 34 Timing Dilemma
Section 34 allows award challenges within 3 months of receiving the award — with a maximum 30-day extension for sufficient cause. Beyond 3 months and 30 days — the right to challenge is permanently gone.
If a party receives an award passed after mandate expiry — they face an impossible choice:
- Challenge under Section 34 within 3 months — but the Court says such awards may not need to be challenged under Section 34
- Wait to see if mandate gets extended — but if it does get extended and you’ve missed 3 months, can you still challenge?
The Court left this question unanswered.
Problem 3: Parliament’s Intent vs Judicial Expansion
The 1940 Arbitration Act explicitly allowed courts to extend time even after an award was made. The 1996 Act — which replaced it — contains no such provision. This omission was deliberate.
If Parliament had intended post-award extensions, it would have said so — as it did in the 1940 Act. The Supreme Court’s Velusamy ruling effectively reads back into the 1996 Act a power Parliament consciously removed.
Problem 4: Discipline vs Flexibility
Section 29A was designed to impose discipline on arbitrators. The threat of mandate termination was meant to force timely awards. Velusamy dilutes that threat entirely — if awards can always be retrospectively validated, what is the practical consequence of missing the 18-month deadline?
What This Means for Businesses Using Arbitration
If you are an award-holder whose award was passed after the 18-month deadline:
- Your award is currently unenforceable under Section 36
- Apply to court under Section 29A(5) for retrospective mandate extension
- If extension granted — enforce under Section 36 immediately
- Do not assume the award is permanently dead — Velusamy gives you a path
If you are challenging a post-deadline award:
- The award is in legal grey zone — not void, not enforceable
- File Section 34 challenge within 3 months as a protective measure — do not wait
- Simultaneously oppose any Section 29A(5) extension application
- Argue that Parliament consciously omitted post-award extension from the 1996 Act
If your arbitration is currently running:
- Monitor the 12-month and 18-month deadlines obsessively
- Apply for Section 29A(5) extension before the deadline expires — not after
- Get party consent for 6-month extension before the 12-month deadline if proceedings are complex
- Do not rely on Velusamy as a safety net — courts have discretion to refuse retrospective extension
The Bigger Picture — What India’s Arbitration Ecosystem Needs
Section 29A was one of the most positive reforms in Indian arbitration history. It addressed a real, chronic problem — arbitrations running for 5-10 years without awards.
Velusamy, while well-intentioned in preventing technical objections from defeating substantive justice, may have inadvertently weakened the one provision that was actually working.
The ideal solution is a legislative amendment — clearly specifying:
- Whether post-award Section 29A(5) applications are maintainable
- Whether Section 34 challenges are required for post-mandate awards
- What the limitation period is for challenging such awards
- Whether retrospective extensions create fresh Section 34 windows
Until that amendment comes — parties are navigating genuine legal uncertainty. And in arbitration — uncertainty is expensive.
💼 LegalFund — Pan India Arbitration Funding
Section 29A uncertainty means additional legal battles — Section 29A(5) applications, Section 34 challenges, enforcement fights. These proceedings cost ₹8-25 lakhs on top of the original arbitration costs.
LegalFund pays all your arbitration costs — including Section 29A(5) applications, Section 34 challenges, Section 37 appeals, and Section 36 enforcement — upfront and in full. You pay nothing unless you succeed. 100% non-recourse.
How it works: Submit your case → Expert review in 10 days → Funding agreement → LegalFund funds everything → You succeed → LegalFund takes pre-agreed share
✅ No upfront cost · No guarantee · No collateral · No repayment if unsuccessful
500+ cases evaluated · ₹85Cr+ funded · 87% won or settled · Pan India
→ Apply free at legalfund
People Also Ask
What is Section 29A of the Arbitration Act?
Section 29A (introduced by the 2015 Amendment) sets a 12-month deadline for passing an arbitral award from when the arbitrator enters reference — extendable by 6 months with party consent. Maximum total timeline is 18 months. After that — the tribunal’s mandate terminates under Section 29A(4) unless extended by court under Section 29A(5).
What did the Supreme Court hold in C. Velusamy vs K Indhera (2026)?
The Supreme Court held that a Section 29A(5) application for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate is maintainable even after the award has been delivered beyond the statutory timeline — and such extension can operate retrospectively to validate an otherwise unenforceable award. The ruling created significant uncertainty about when such awards can be challenged and enforced.
Is an arbitral award passed after Section 29A deadline void?
Per Velusamy (2026) — not automatically void. The award is described as “unenforceable” under Section 36 until the court grants a retrospective mandate extension under Section 29A(5). The Court also held such awards need not necessarily be challenged under Section 34 — creating a legal grey zone about their precise status.
Should I file a Section 34 challenge against a post-deadline arbitral award?
Yes — file within 3 months as a protective measure. Do not wait to see if the mandate gets extended. The Section 34 window of 3 months plus 30 days is absolute — if it closes, your right to challenge is permanently gone regardless of what happens with the Section 29A(5) extension application.
What is the difference between Rohan Builders and Velusamy on Section 29A?
Rohan Builders (2024) dealt with extending the mandate before an award was passed — allowing tribunals to make awards after the 18-month deadline. Velusamy (2026) dealt with retrospectively validating an award already passed after mandate expiry. The Court used Rohan Builders to justify Velusamy — but critics argue the two situations are fundamentally different and the 1996 Act contains no post-award extension mechanism.
Can I get funding for Section 29A disputes and arbitration award challenges in India?
Yes. LegalFund finances Section 29A(5) applications, Section 34 challenges, Section 37 appeals, and Section 36 enforcement across India — zero upfront, non-recourse. Apply at legalfund.in.