Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Jagdeep Chowgule – Appellant
Versus
Sheela Chowgule & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 574-575 of 2026 Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10944-10945 of 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2026
The Sections applied in the given judgment include Section 29A, which deals with the time limits for arbitral awards and the extension of such periods (!) (!) (!) (!) , Section 2(1)(e), which defines the term "Court" for the purposes of arbitration proceedings (!) (!) , and Section 42, which pertains to the jurisdiction of courts in arbitration matters (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. questions referred for authoritative determination. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. background of the arbitration dispute. (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. question of filing under section 29a. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. interpretation of section 29a's jurisdiction. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. clarification on the definition of 'court' under section 2(1)(e). (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. conclusion to restore commercial court's earlier judgment. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
| Contents I. Questions of Law Referred to the Division Bench II. The simple question for our consideration III. Facts of the case IV. Divergence in the opinion of the High Courts on interpretation of “Court” under Section 2 (1)(e) of the Act A. Judgments taking the view that ‘Court’ in Section 2 9A is Court as defined in (1)(e) B. Other stream of judgments interpreting Court in Section 2 9A in the ‘context’ to disapply (1)(e) V. Scheme of the Act VI. Scope of Referral Court’s Jurisdiction under Section 11 VII. True Text and Context of Section 29A VIII. Interpretation of the expression “Court” in Section 2 (1)(e) IX. Applicability of Section 42 X. Conclusion |
1. Leave granted.
I. Questions of Law Referred to the Division Bench
2. The following two questions were referred by the Single Judge of High Court of Bombay at Goa1[Vide order dated 15.04.2024 in Writ Petition No. 88 of 2024 filed by Respondent No.1, against of order of the Commercial Court in CMA No. 20/2023/A allowing application under Section 2 9A by Respondent no. 2.] to the Division Bench of the High Court for authoritative determination.
ii) In the event an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators is constituted as per Section 11 (2) i.e. with agreement and consent of the parties, fail to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, where would an application under Section 2 9A(4) lie in before the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in the case of domestic arbitration?”
3. The Division Bench2[Vide order dated 07.08.2024.] answered the reference in the following manner.
(ii) In answer to the second question, we opine that in the event an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators is constituted as per Section 11 (2) i.e. with agreement and consent of the parties, fail to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, the application under Section 2 9A(4) would lie to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction.”
4. Following reference of the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge allowed writ petition3[Vide order dated 21.08.2024.] filed by the respondent no.1 and quashed the order passed by the Commercial Court extending the time for making the Award under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19964[Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.]. The decision of the Division Bench as well as the subsequent judgment and order of the Single Judge are impugned before us.
II. The simple question for our consideration
5. As we begin to examine the very same questions, ably canvassed before us by Mr. Abhay Anil Anturkar and Mr. Amit Pai, learned counsels for the appellant and the respondents respectively, we would prefer to reframe the question, which is as simple and straight forward as
The Supreme Court clarified jurisdictional complexities regarding applications for extension of time for arbitral awards under Section 29A, emphasizing specific court roles based on how arbitrators a....
The High Court has jurisdiction to extend the mandate of arbitrators appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, ensuring adherence to party autonomy and minimal court intervention.
The court clarified that applications for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A must be filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, not the High Court.
The High Court has exclusive authority to extend the mandate of an arbitrator appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, regardless of the pecuniary value of the claim.
The court affirmed that the term 'Court' under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act is exhaustively defined, limiting powers to specified civil courts, with definitive precedents clarifying that High C....
The High Court has jurisdiction to extend time for arbitration proceedings, provided the arbitrator was appointed by it, reflecting legislative intent requiring contextual interpretation of 'Court' i....
The High Court has the authority to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator if the arbitration proceeding could not be concluded within a reasonable time, as per Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conci....
The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction and applicability of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be considered in the context of the appointing authorit....
The court determines jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and concludes the petition is not maintainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
