Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B.SNEHALATHA
Offshore Infrastructures Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
Devan Ramachandran, J.
We are speaking on a reference placed before us by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court, initiated by a learned Single Judge through his order dated 09.06.2025.
2. The forensic and legal issues involved are ones that have engaged the attention of Courts several times before; and perhaps on which, authoritative pronouncements have already been made, not only by this Court or by other High Courts, but also by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. The singular aspect placed for our evaluation under the reference, is as to the identity of the ‘Court’ as appearing in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (‘Act’ for short).
4. As is well recognized, under the ‘Act’, after an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal is appointed, it prescribes a time limit for the mandate of Arbitration, which can then be extended in the manner specified in Section 29A thereof.
5. The apparent confusion is hinged on the question if such an extension can be granted by a Court which is not the High Court, in the case of an Arbitration where the Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal had been appointed by it under the provisions of Section 11 of the ‘Act’.
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 the mandate of arbitrators appointed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, ensuring adherence to party autonomy and minimal court intervention.
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 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 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 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 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 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
