The Supreme Court has clarified that applications seeking extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act must be filed before the civil court of original jurisdiction, even where the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has clarified that applications seeking extension of time to conclude arbitration proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the civil court having original jurisdiction, even where the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11.
The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule.
The apex court categorically held that the High Court or the Supreme Court does not retain supervisory or continuing jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings merely because it appointed the arbitrator.
Once an arbitral tribunal is constituted, the court that appointed the arbitrator becomes functus officio, the Bench observed.
“It is a misconception to assume that the Supreme Court or the High Court keeps a watch on the conduct of arbitral proceedings like Orwell’s ‘Big Brother is watching you’,”
the Court remarked.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated January 11, 2021, executed among members of the Chowgule family. Arbitration was invoked in May 2021. Due to delays and the resignation of the presiding arbitrator, the Bombay High Court at Goa appointed a new arbitrator under Section 11.
Meanwhile, an application under Section 29A seeking an extension of time to conclude the arbitration was allowed by the Commercial Court. This order was later set aside by the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench), which held that since the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court, only the High Court could extend time.
Conflicting High Court decisions across the country on this jurisdictional issue led to the matter reaching the Supreme Court.
Addressing concerns raised by some High Courts about a possible “conflict of power” if civil courts were allowed to substitute or extend the mandate of arbitrators appointed by High Courts, the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning outright.
“The conclusion that there would be hierarchical difficulties or jurisdictional anomaly if a civil court entertains a Section 29A application is untenable,”
the Bench held.
The Court emphasised that jurisdiction flows from statute, not from the status or hierarchy of courts.
The Supreme Court held that the term “Court” in Section 29A must carry the same meaning as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
Accordingly:
- In domestic arbitration, the principal civil court or commercial court of original jurisdiction has authority under Section 29A.
- A High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 29A only if it has ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and not merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11.
The Bench clarified that Section 29A falls within curial supervision of arbitration, which Parliament has expressly vested in courts defined under Section 2(1)(e).
“Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 stands exhausted upon constitution of the arbitral tribunal. There is no residual supervisory or controlling power left with the High Court or the Supreme Court,”
the judgment said.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the judgments of the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench),
- Restored the Commercial Court’s order extending the arbitration timeline,
- Permitted parties to seek further extension before the Commercial Court under Section 29A.
No costs were imposed.
Appearance:
The petitioners: Advocates Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank, Aniruddha Awalgaonkar, Sarthak Mehrotra, Bhagwant Deshpande and Surbhi Kapoor.
The respondents: Advocates Amit Pai, Omkar Jayant Deshpande, Ashok Poulo Paul, Mukul Reedla, Shaneen Parikh, Sanskriti Sidana, Rahul Mantri, Parag Rao, Shambhavi Rao, Akhil Parikar, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Raghav Sharma, Kritika, Jaskirat Pal Singh, Moulishree Pathak, Shiven Desai, Vivek Jain, Suchitra Kumbhat, Sadiq Noor, Rohit H Nair and Benila BM.
Case Title:
JAGDEEP CHOWGULE versus SHEELA CHOWGULE & ORS.
SLP (C) NO(S).10944-10945 OF 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports On Arbitration
