Civil Court, Not High Court, Is the Forum to Extend Arbitral Mandate Under Section 29A; Commercial Court Order Restored

A two-judge Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan heard appeals arising from conflicting Bombay (Goa) High Court orders on the proper forum for seeking an extension of an arbitral tribunal’s mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeals challenged a Division Bench reference and a subsequent Single Judge order that held the High Court (which had appointed the arbitrator under Section 11) was the appropriate forum for a Section 29A(4) extension application.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored the Commercial Court’s order extending the arbitral tribunal’s mandate. The Court held that, absent clear contextual indicators to the contrary, the expression “Court” in Section 29A must bear the meaning assigned in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act — namely the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in a district, which “includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.” The Court rejected the notion that appointment by a superior court under Section 11(6) ousted the statutory forum for Section 29A applications and observed that concerns about “hierarchical difficulties” or “conflict of power” did not supply context to depart from the statutory definition. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “(v) The ‘Court’ under Section 29A shall be the Civil Court of ordinary original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e), and shall not be the High Court or the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. Equally, Section 42 of the Act relating to jurisdiction for application will not apply to Section 11 of the Act.”

Background The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Family Settlement executed on January 11, 2021 between members of the Chowgule family, which led to arbitration invoked under clause 24 on May 18, 2021. After the presiding arbitrator resigned, respondent No.2 moved the High Court under Section 11 for appointment of an arbitrator; the High Court appointed an arbitrator on October 31, 2023. Meanwhile the respondent had obtained from the Commercial Court an extension under Section 29A on January 2, 2024. Respondent No.1 challenged that extension by writ, contending that once the High Court appointed the arbitrator under Section 11, the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an extension application under Section 29A(4).

The Bombay (Goa) Division Bench answered earlier referred questions by holding that where the arbitral tribunal was constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6) an application under Section 29A(4) would lie to the High Court, but where arbitrators were appointed by the parties under Section 11(2) the appropriate forum would be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. The Single Judge thereafter quashed the Commercial Court’s extension order and invited parties to approach the High Court. The appellant challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analysed the scheme of the Act, the definition of “Court” in Section 2(1)(e), the limited and exhausted nature of Section 11 jurisdiction, and authorities including SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Nimet Resources v. Essar Steels. The Court noted that “Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court over the arbitral proceedings after appointment is made.” Applying the ordinary rule that defined terms bear their statutory meaning “unless the context otherwise requires,” the Court found no contextual indicia in Section 29A to displace the definition in Section 2(1)(e). The Court therefore allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders of August 7 and August 21, 2024, and restored the Commercial Court order dated January 2, 2024. The Court granted liberty to the parties to move the Commercial Court for any further extension under Section 29A(5) and directed the Commercial Court to consider such application expeditiously. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 92 Case Title: Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Pai, Advocate