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 Courts lack authority in contexts not expressly permitted.

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’.

6. At first blush, there should not have been any real issue for concern because, Section 2 (1)(e) of the ‘Act’ defines ‘Court’ in the following manner:

“2. Definitions.—(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,—

[(e) “Court” means—

(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. However, almost as an exception, the ‘Act’ then mandates under Section 11 that, in certain specified scenarios, the appointment of an Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal shall be made by the High Court in the case of a Domestic Arbitration and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of an International Arbitration.

8. It is here that the question arises whether an extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator beyond the period - which is normally fixed under Section 29A(1) of the ‘Act’ - should be left to be done by the Court as defined under Section 2 (1)(e) thereof, or by the High Court/ Supreme Court, as the case may be.

9. This confusion is not something that arose recently because, even prior to the year 2020, a reference appears to have been made by another learned Judge on the very same issue, which led to a judgment by a learned Division Bench, cited as M/s.Lots Shipping Company Ltd. V. Cochin Port Trust Board of Trustees [ 2020(2) KLT 907 ].

10. In M/s.Lots Shipping Company Ltd. (supra), the learned Bench adopted the principles of contextual interpretation, to h