Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J., A. V. Sesha Sai, J.
Dr.V. V. Subbarao, S/o Late Adiseshaiah - Applicant
Versus
Dr. Appa Rao Mukkamala – Respondents
Arbitration Application Nos.57, 59 & 60 of 2023
Decided On : 10-05-2024
Arbitration - Extension of Mandate - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 29A - The court interpreted Section 29A regarding the maintainability of applications for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal, concluding that such applications must be filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, not the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
Disputes arose within a registered society managing a medical college, leading to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Applications were filed for extending the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under Section 29A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applications under Section 29A were not maintainable before the High Court, as the definition of 'Court' in the Act specifies that such applications should be made to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether applications for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under Section 29A are maintainable before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'Court' in Section 29A refers specifically to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, and not the High Court, thus limiting the jurisdiction for such applications.
Result: The applications under Section 29A are dismissed as not maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J.
These applications have been filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal for passing an Award.
2. Facts in brief:
NRI Academy of Sciences is a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001. The said Society runs a medical college and nursing homes. Disputes arose with regard to the management of the NRI Academy of Sciences (for short, ‘NRIAS’). By virtue of order, dated 22.02.2022 passed in W.A. No.234 of 2020 and other connected matters, disputes were referred for adjudication by an arbitral tribunal comprising of Justice Devinder Gupta as the sole Arbitrator, in view of Section 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001, which envisages that in the event of any disputes arising amongst the members of the Society, in respect of any matter relating to the affairs of the Society, any member of the Society may proceed with the dispute under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the non-applicants regarding the maintainability of the applications under Section 29A of the Act before this Court. According to the non-applicants, the application under Section 29A ought to have been filed before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the District and not before this Court, which does not have any original jurisdiction.
4. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the present applications seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal under Section 29A are maintainable before the High Court or not.
5. Section 29A prescribes the time limit for arbitral awards.
5.1. Sub-section 1 of Section 29A envisages that an award in matters other than the international commercial matters shall be made by the arbitral tribunal within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section 4 of Section 23.
5.2. Sub-section 3 of Section 29A of the Act further envisages extension in the period for making of the award not exceeding six months with the consent of the parties.
5.3. Sub-section 4 of Section 29A of the Act envisages termination of the mandate of the arbitrators unless ‘the Court’, either prior to or after expiry of the period so specified extends the period for making the award.
5.4. Sub-section 6 of the Section 29A further envisages that while extending the period under Sub-section 4, it would be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators.
6. The term Court is defined in Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act as under:
(i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;
(ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject- matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court;”
7. The basis for the applicants to file the present applications before this Court for seeking extension under Section 29A lies in the judgment and order rendered by a single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. K. V. Ramana Reddy vs. Rasthriya Ispat Nigam Limited (2023) SCC OnLine AP 398. This was a case where the arbitral tribunal was constituted by the High Court. The arbitral tribunal entered upon the r
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 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 time for arbitration proceedings, provided the arbitrator was appointed by it, reflecting legislative intent requiring contextual interpretation of 'Court' i....
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 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 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....
(1) Extension of mandate of Arbitrator(s) – Application under Section 29A(5) for extension of mandate of Arbitrator is maintainable even after expiry of time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even af....
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
