Supreme Court Clarifies Extension of time of Arbitral tribunal can be done by supervising court and not Section 11 court.

Overview

This case relates to a repetitive question under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e., which court has the authority to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A when the arbitrator was appointed by a High Court under Section 11. Different views across High Courts had led to uncertainty on whether the appointing High Court only, has jurisdiction for applications for extensions.

The Supreme Court examined the Act and clarified that jurisdiction must be determined in accordance with the definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e), and not on the basis of which court appointed the arbitrator. The ruling provides a clear view with regard to arbitration law and also clarifies that it does not support assumptions which are not backed up by the statute.

Facts

The dispute began within a family. A Memorandum of Family Settlement was signed on 11 January 2021. Differences emerged between them, and arbitration was invoked on 18 May 2021 to resolve those issues.

During the arbitration, the presiding arbitrator resigned. To make sure that the process continues, the parties approached the High Court of Bombay at Goa under Section 11. On 31 October 2023, a substitute arbitrator was appointed by the High Court. At the same time, the time limit provided under the statute for completing the arbitration was running out. Under Section 29A, arbitration proceedings must be completed within a prescribed time limit unless a court grants an extension. An application seeking such an extension was filed before the Commercial Court on 5 August 2023. On 2 January 2024, the Commercial Court allowed the request and extended the time.

This particular order was challenged. The matter went before a Single Judge, who referred it to a Division Bench because earlier decisions of the High Court seemed inconsistent. The Division Bench took the view that since the High Court had appointed the arbitrator under Section 11, the extension application should also have been filed before the High Court. Based on this reasoning, the Commercial Court’s order was set aside.

The dispute then reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

Whether only the High Court that appoints an arbitrator under Section 11, has jurisdiction to extend the time period of the arbitration under Section 29A.
Whether jurisdiction for applications under Section 29A is affected by Section 42 of the Act.
Whether the term “Court” in Section 29A must be interpreted strictly considering the scope of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

Decision

The Supreme Court restored the Commercial Court’s order while allowing the appeal extending time. It explained that the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 is limited. It does not mean that the High Court continues to supervise every step in the arbitration that follows.

The Court clarified that applications under Section 29A must be filed before the “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Jurisdiction must be decided on the basis of this definition, not from which court appointed the arbitrator earlier. The Supreme Court also observed that Section 42 does not change this position. A Section 11 application does not shift jurisdiction for all future applications.

Case Reference :- Civil Appeal No.(s) of 2026 Arising Out of SLP (C) No.(s). 10944-10945 of 2025 (Before P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ.) Jagdeep Chowgule Vs. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.