As per case facts, disputes arose from a Deed of Assignment of Development Rights. An arbitrator was appointed, but after an interim order, no further proceedings took place for a ... long time. Applicants sought extension of the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A, but the Court refused, finding that the applicants had abandoned the arbitration proceedings. This decision was upheld by the Apex Court. Subsequently, applicants issued fresh notices demanding appointment of an arbitrator, claiming continuous cause of action. The question arose whether an arbitrator can be appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act when the Court has already refused to extend the mandate of the earlier arbitral tribunal, explicitly finding that the applicants abandoned the proceedings. Finally, the Court ruled that appointing a new arbitrator in such circumstances would amount to reviewing the previous Section 29A order and rewarding the applicants for their negligence. The Court emphasized that if a party is at fault for the delay leading to the refusal of mandate extension, the arbitration proceedings are deemed terminated, and no fresh appointment can be made. The doors of arbitration are closed for them in this specific context.