As per case facts, a conflict arose among High Courts regarding the interpretation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Calcutta High Court initially held that ... applications for extending the arbitral award timeline must be filed before the tribunal's mandate expires. In contrast, High Courts of Delhi, Bombay, Kerala, Madras, and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh permitted such applications even after the mandate had terminated. A subsequent Calcutta High Court decision also adopted this latter view. The question arose whether an application for extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be filed after the expiry of the period for making of the arbitral award. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that an application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the specified twelve-month or extended six-month period. The Court clarified that the term "terminate" in Section 29A(4) is not absolute, as the provision explicitly allows for extensions "either prior to or after the expiry of the period." This broad interpretation aims to prevent unnecessary impediments to arbitration and aligns with the legislative intent of timely dispute resolution while providing flexibility based on sufficient cause and judicial discretion.