Court Can Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Even After Its Expiry: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has reiterated that an arbitrator's authority does not end automatically on expiry of the time limit prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The court said that it retains the power to extend an arbitrator's mandate even after expiry of the time fixed and that in this case the parties had consented by their conduct.

Applying this settled position, the court extended the mandate of the arbitrator in the case before it and refused to terminate the proceedings at an advanced stage.

Justice Arindam Mukherjee, sitting at the Circuit Bench in Port Blair, noted that the order appointing the arbitrator had fixed an 18-month period but did not state that this timeline was final or incapable of extension.

“An order should not be read as status,” the court observed, adding that “in absence of any specific stipulation that the time cannot be extended it has to be construed that time can be extended.”

The dispute is between Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Limited and Heaven on Ocean Tourism Private Limited, arising out of two contracts between them. A sole arbitrator was appointed by the High Court on March 20, 2023.

He was appointed with a direction to complete the arbitration within 18 months from the filing of the statement of claim.

That period expired in November 2024. By then, evidence had been completed, and the matter had reached the final stage of arguments.

Despite the expiry of the deadline, hearings continued. Dates were fixed with the consent of both sides, and neither party raised any objection. The arbitrator also recorded that the respondent had agreed to move the court for an extension of time but did not do so.

Owing to this, in April 2025, ANIIDCO approached the High Court seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate.

However, Heaven on Ocean Tourism, opposing the plea, argued that once the 18-month period expired on November 19, 2024, the arbitrator no longer had the authority to continue and that any application filed thereafter was not maintainable.

It sought termination of the mandate and appointment of a substitute arbitrator. ANIIDCO countered this by pointing out that the proceedings were already at the final argument stage and that both sides had continued without objection after the deadline.

Rejecting the objection, the court noted that the parties had continued with arguments beyond November 19, 2024 without protest and held that, by their conduct, they had “by consent agreed to the extension of mandate.”

The court reiterated that even where an arbitrator's authority is treated as having come to an end because the time limit has expired, this is “not in strict sense,” since the law permits the court to extend the mandate.

Finding no justification to terminate the proceedings at such an advanced stage, the High Court refused to appoint a substitute arbitrator. It extended the arbitrator's mandate till September 30, 2026, and directed the parties to conclude arguments by June 30, 2026, leaving time thereafter for the award to be made. 

Case Title: Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Corporation Ltd. v. Heaven on Ocean Tourism Pvt. Ltd

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (CAL) 18

Case Number: AP/2/2025

For Petitioner: Advocate V.D. Sivabalan

For Respondent: Advocate Md. Tabraiz