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.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Karnik, J.

The Reference :

1. The learned Single Judge was not in agreement with the view taken by another learned Single Judge in Mormugao Port Trust vs. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Writ Petition No.3/2020 decided on 15.01.2020 and as the same was contrary to the decision of this Court in K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J. V. Municipal Corporation of the city of Ichalkaranji, 2024 SCC Online Bom 327 and hence thought it fit to refer the matter to a larger bench. The reference is made on the following questions :

(i) In the event an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6) fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/ extended period, where an application under Section 29-A(4) would lie i.e. the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in case of a domestic arbitration ?

(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, fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, where an application under Section 29-A(4) would lie i.e. before the High Court or the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in the case of domestic arbitration ?

2. Shri Parag Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it may now not be necessary to answer the reference in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) vs. M/s. BSC & C and C JV, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1801. It is submitted that after the decision in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) (supra) was brought to the notice of the learned Judge who had made the reference, the learned Judge in Marcelina Fernandes & Ors. vs. Green Valley Realtors, 2024 SCC Online Bom 2028 held that in view of the observations of the Supreme Court, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the district is the Court of Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao. Shri Rao, therefore submitted that the issued is now well settled.

3. On a reading of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) (supra), we did carry an impression that the reference could be answered in terms of the Supreme Court’s order as it seems squarely covered by such decision. We find it apposite to reproduce the order in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) (supra), which reads thus :

“Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) reads thus:

“29A. Time limit for arbitral award. - (1) The award in matters other than international commercial arbitration 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.

Provided that the award in the matter of international commercial arbitration may be made as expeditiously as possible and endeavour may be made to dispose off the matter within a period of twelve months from the date of completion of pleadings under sub-section (4) of section 23.

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months.

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period:

Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent.