Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Rural Infrastructure Development Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
1. All the captioned proceedings relate to the invocation of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) on the premise that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has expired with no sign of the arbitration being conducted and thereby seeking substitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, invoking Section 29A(6) read with Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. By consent of the parties the Arbitration Petition No. 238 of 2025 is taken up as the lead Petition. Learned Advocates for the parties agree that disposal of this Petition would be instructive for disposal of all the captioned Petitions.
2. How parties to a deemed arbitration agreement created under statute, could ensure that the arbitration actually takes place when the statutory authority fails to appoint a functional arbitrator, is the issue that has arisen for consideration in the captioned Petition. Evidently, no Arbitral Award has been passed within the statutory timeframe contemplated under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
3. The Petitioner is the owner of land bearing Gat No. 222/A, 222A/2 and 222A/3 admeasuring 14,608 square metres in Village Dalkhan, Taluka Sh
The court affirmed that when arbitration fails to occur within statutory timelines, the court has the authority to substitute the arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,....
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 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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the District Court had jurisdiction to substitute the Arbitrator under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the absen....
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....
Section 29A of Arbitration Act inapplicable to arbitrations under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act as special code; Central Government exclusive appointment overrides court extension/substituti....
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.
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
