Rajasthan High Court on Section 29A Arbitration Act | Kartik Seth in HCL Infosystems Data Centre Arbitration Dispute

Rajasthan High Court Cautions Against Mechanical Extension of Arbitral Mandates | Kartik Seth Appears in HCL Infosystems Data Centre Dispute

In a ruling that strikes at the heart of one of Indian arbitration’s most pressing procedural concerns, the Rajasthan High Court has sounded a firm caution against the mechanical extension of arbitral mandates under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act emphasising that the provision exists to serve the goal of speedy justice, not to become a routine rubber stamp for prolonging inconclusive proceedings. Advocates Kartik Seth and Shilpa Saini appeared in this matter, which arose from a dispute concerning the installation of data centres by HCL Infosystems Limited.

The Case at a Glance

The underlying dispute in this matter involves the installation of data centres by HCL Infosystems — a significant technology infrastructure contract with Rajasthan State power entities. As the arbitration proceedings stretched well beyond their expected timeline, an application for extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A came before the Rajasthan High Court. What the Court did with that application, and the observations it made in doing so, have significant implications for how Section 29A is understood and applied going forward.

The Court’s Caution: Speedy Justice vs. Mechanical Extension

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was introduced precisely to impose time discipline on arbitral proceedings mandating that awards be made within twelve months of the completion of pleadings, with an extension of up to six months by consent, and further extensions only by court order upon sufficient cause being shown. The Rajasthan High Court’s caution in this matter is directed at a growing tendency to treat such extensions as a matter of course a procedural formality rather than an exception requiring genuine justification. The Court made clear that every extension application must be examined on its merits, that sufficient cause must be genuinely demonstrated, and that the court’s power under Section 29A is not a mechanical tool to be deployed on demand. Speedy justice the animating purpose behind the provision  must remain the touchstone against which every extension request is measured.

Kartik Seth’s Role

Appearing alongside Advocate Shilpa Saini, Kartik Seth represented the State power companies’ interests in a matter that required careful navigation of both the procedural dimensions of Section 29A and the broader strategic context of a long-running, high-cost arbitration. His consistent presence across multiple hearings in this series of disputes involving Rajasthan State power entities and HCL Infosystems reflects a deep, sustained engagement with some of the most important arbitration-related litigation currently before the Rajasthan High Court. The issues raised in these proceedings delay, escalating costs, mechanical extensions, and judicial oversight of arbitral tribunals are ones that Kartik Seth has helped bring squarely into judicial focus through his persistent and principled advocacy.

The Broader Significance for Indian Arbitration

This ruling adds to a growing body of judicial guidance that is reshaping how Section 29A extensions are approached across India. Taken together with the earlier interventions of the Rajasthan High Court in related proceedings concerning the same dispute where the Court flagged ₹14.5 crores in accumulated arbitration fees and expressed serious concern over the tribunal’s failure to conclude proceedings this latest caution forms part of a coherent and increasingly firm judicial stance. Courts are signalling that arbitration must reclaim its identity as a swift, cost-effective, and disciplined dispute resolution mechanism and that judicial oversight will be actively exercised where that identity is being lost.