Integrity and efficiency as structural objects of time limits in arbitration

The introduction of Section 29A into the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, represents a clear legislative policy aimed at instilling structural integrity, accountability, and efficiency in alternative dispute resolution. By prescribing fixed timelines for rendering arbitral awards, Parliament sought to eradicate procedural delays and unnecessary adjournments that historically plagued domestic arbitrations. Section 29A balances strict time limits with judicial flexibility by enabling consensual extensions, judicial time extensions, and financial incentives or penalties for arbitrators. The vesting of supervisory powers under Section 29A in the principal Civil Court ensures accessible curial oversight without disturbing the ongoing arbitration process. Courts interpreting Section 29A must give effect to this dual statutory object of avoiding delay while preventing the premature death of arbitral proceedings. Therefore, procedural mechanisms under Section 29A must be applied strictly to fulfill the legislative goal of timely dispute resolution. (Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. | 2026 INSC 92)