Which Court Has The Jurisdiction To Extend Time Under Section 29A Of The A&C Act? The Supreme Court Clarifies.

The Supreme Court of India, on January 29, 2026, delivered a landmark judgment, Jagdeep Chowgule versus Sheela Chowgule & Ors.1 providing clarity regarding the extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (“the Act”) in the instances when the High Court appointed the arbitrator under section 11 of the Act.  

Background and factual matrix 

The dispute between the parties arose out of the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 11.01.2021 executed between the parties herein. Upon the invocation of the arbitration Clause, the Arbitral Tribunal was appointed by the parties' agreement, consisting of 3 arbitrators. However, the presiding arbitrator resigned and withdrew from his post. Thereafter, a new arbitrator was appointed as the presiding arbitrator by mutual agreement of the arbitrators. Thereafter, the appointed arbitrator also recused himself as a Presiding Arbitrator. The High Court of Bombay at Goa vide order dated 31.10.2023 appointed the Presiding Arbitrator. 

While the presiding arbitrator was being appointed, the time for completion of the arbitration proceedings had expired. Therefore, one of the Respondents filed an application for extension under Section 29A before the Commercial Court on 05.08.2023, which was allowed by the Commercial Court vide order dated 02.01.2024. However, since the presiding arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11, the respondent herein challenged the order dated 02.01.2024 by a writ petition dated 08.01.2024. The single judge of the High Court, in view of certain conflicting judgments on the interpretation of Section 29A (4), referred the matter to the division bench of the High Court. 

The division bench held that the application under Section 29A (4) is not maintainable before the Commercial Court as the presiding arbitrator was appointed by the High Court. Based on the decision of the Division Bench, the Single judge of the High Court set aside the order of the Commercial Court dated 02.01.2024 and allowed the parties to approach the High Court for extension of time. The appellant thereafter challenged the order of the High Court dated 02.01.2024 before the Supreme Court of India. 

Legal issue 

If an arbitral tribunal appointed by the High Court or by the parties concerned does not complete proceedings within the required or extended time limit, can an application to extend time under Section 29A of the Act be filed before the High Court or the Civil Court? 

Judgement/ findings of the court 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the scope of the referral court's jurisdiction under Section 11, concluded that the enquiry under Section 11 is confined to a prima facie determination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and that it becomes functus officio once the appointment is made.  Also, under Part 1 of the Act, only the court defined under Section 2(1)(e) is qualified as ‘court' as held in Nimet Resources Inc. & Anr. v. Essar Steels Ltd.2 The mandate of extension of mandate under Section 29 A is a measure designed to merely ensure the timely conclusion of arbitration and does not take the character of “appointment” under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, under section 29A of the Act, the court of original civil jurisdiction, as defined under section 2(1)(e), would have the jurisdiction to extend the time period even when the arbitrator has been appointed by the High Court under section 11 of the Act.   

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and restored the judgment of the Commercial Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 20/2023/A dated 02.01.2024, while giving the parties the liberty to move to the Commercial Court for further extension under Section 29A (5) for exercising the Court's power under Section 29A (4). 

Conclusion 

The decision of the Supreme Court in this case of Jagdeep Chowgule versus Sheela Chowgule & Ors is significant as it resolves a long-standing debate over whether the application for seeking extension of mandate of the arbitral tribunal is to be made before the High Court which appointed the arbitrator or to the "Court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e)- viz., the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, which includes the High Court only where it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction. 

The Supreme Court held that ‘court' as referred to under section 29A (4) shall mean the courts as defined under section 2(e) of the Act and not the court appointing the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act.  

Parties to the arbitration agreement can now proceed with certainty before the principal Civil Courts for seeking an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.