Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a civil appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition concerning jurisdiction for time extension applications under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- The dispute originated from a family settlement memorandum, leading to arbitration and subsequent applications for time extension -- The High Court of Bombay at Goa had referred questions to a Division Bench, which provided answers distinguishing jurisdiction based on the appointing authority of the arbitral tribunal -- The Supreme Court reframed the questions, analyzing the interpretation of 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act -- It reviewed divergent High Court judgments and the scheme of the Act -- The Court held that for tribunals appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), Section 29A(4) applications lie before the High Court, and for those appointed by parties under Section 11(2), they lie before the Civil Court -- The judgment sets aside the impugned orders and provides clarity on jurisdictional issues in arbitration proceedings.
Headnote
A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 29A(4) – Extension of time for making arbitral award – Whether application lies before High Court which appointed arbitrator under Section 11 or before “Court” defined under Section 2(1)(e) – Held, Section 11 jurisdiction exhausts once arbitrator is appointed – Extension application under Section 29A lies before Court of original civil jurisdiction as defined in Section 2(1)(e) – High Court order set aside. B) Statutory Interpretation – Definition of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e) – Applies uniformly to proceedings under Part I of the Act – Judicial hierarchy or source of appointment irrelevant for jurisdiction under Section 29A – Commercial Court’s order granting extension restored.
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of consideration was whether an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extension of time for arbitral proceedings, lies before the High Court or the Civil Court, depending on whether the arbitral tribunal was appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) or by the parties under Section 11(2)
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court reframed the questions and held that for arbitral tribunals appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), applications under Section 29A(4) lie before the High Court, and for those appointed by the parties under Section 11(2), they lie before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction -- The Court set aside the impugned orders and provided a unified interpretation to resolve divergent High Court views.
