Chapters V and VI (Sections 18–33) are the “Engine Room” of the Act, governing the day-to-day conduct of proceedings and the finality of awards. The legal updates in 2025 and 2026 have shifted heavily toward enforcing strict timelines and procedural discipline.
1. Chapter V: Conduct of Arbitral Proceedings (Sections 18–27)
Section 21: Commencement of Proceedings
- Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd. v. State of Kerala (Jan 2026): * The Rule: A Section 21 notice is primarily for the purpose of limitation.
- The Decision: The Supreme Court held that the failure to issue a formal Section 21 notice is not fatal to the arbitration if the disputes are otherwise arbitrable and the party’s conduct (participation in the tribunal’s formation) shows they waived the requirement.
Section 18 & 19: Equal Treatment and Rules of Procedure
- Serosoft Solutions v. Dexter Capital Advisors (Jan 2025): * The Rule: High Courts should stay away from procedural orders of the Arbitrator.
- The Decision: Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is only allowed if an order is “completely perverse” on the face of the record. Courts must discourage litigation that stalls the process just because a party dislikes a procedural decision (like allowing a witness cross-examination).
2. Chapter VI: Making of Arbitral Award & Termination (Sections 28–33)
This is the most litigated chapter due to Section 29A, which mandates that a domestic award must be passed within 12 months (extendable by 6 months).
Section 29A: The “Time-Limit” Doctrine
- Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (Jan 2026):
- The Landmark Rule: “Court” for extension of time means the District/Commercial Court (Section 2(1)(e)), even if the High Court appointed the arbitrator.
- Why it matters: It settles the debate on judicial hierarchy. The referral court (High Court) becomes functus officio (its job is done) once it appoints the arbitrator. For extensions, you must go to the local Commercial Court.
-
International Exception: In TATA Sons v. Siva Industries, confirmed that Section 29A’s 12-month limit is not mandatory for International Commercial Arbitrations (it is merely a “guideline”).
- Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles (Dec 2025):
- The Rule: If the mandate expires, the arbitrator must be substituted unless there is a very strong reason.
-
The Decision: The SC held that once the mandate terminates by operation of law (Section 29A(4)), the arbitrator becomes functus officio. Under Section 29A(6), the court has a “power and duty” to substitute the arbitrator if they were the cause of the delay.
- Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints (2024/25):
- The Rule: You can file for an extension after the mandate has already expired.
- The Decision: The phrase “prior to or after the expiry” in Section 29A(4) allows a court to revive a “dead” mandate, provided “sufficient cause” for the delay is shown.
3. Summary Table for 2026
| Section |
Topic |
Key 2025/26 Case Law |
| 21 |
Notice of Arbitration |
Bhagheeratha Engineering (2026) |
| 29A |
Extension of Mandate |
Jagdeep Chowgule (2026) |
| 29A(6) |
Substitution of Arbitrator |
Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (2025) |
| 34 |
Delay in Award |
K. Satyanarayana Raju v. UOI (2026) |
Crucial Note on Delay: In K. Satyanarayana Raju (2026), the Madras High Court ruled that while mere delay is not a ground to set aside an award, a 10-year delay that adversely affects the findings makes the award patently illegal and against public policy.