Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28714

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Shilpa Datar – Appellant
Versus
Legancy Global Projects Private Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32867 of 2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Not explicitly named in text]
For the Respondents: [Not explicitly named in text]

An agreement by parties to be governed under the amended Arbitration Act can be inferred from joint memos seeking extension of time, and parties cannot waive the statutory requirement of seeking court extension under Section 29A.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 21, 29A - Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Section 26 - Applicability of amended provisions to pending arbitral proceedings - Time limit for arbitral award - Mandate of arbitrator - Effect of extension of time by consent of parties. (Paras 1, 24, 25)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 - Section 26 - Option for parties to agree otherwise - Agreement to be governed under Amendment Act can be by joint memo or conduct. (Paras 10, 26, 27)

(C) Agreement - Waiver - There cannot be any waiver against statute - Parties cannot waive statutory requirement of seeking extension of time under Section 29A. (Para 33)

(D) Arbitration - Bangalore Arbitration Centre Rules, 2012 - Rule 23 - Duration of arbitral proceedings - Amendment to Rules tracing back to Section 29A. (Paras 23, 29, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners and respondent No.1 entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 30.08.2011 containing an arbitration clause. Disputes arose and respondent No.1 issued notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 on 04.05.2013. A petition under Section 11 was filed and a sole arbitrator was appointed on 26.07.2017. After the 2015 Amendment Act came into force, the parties filed a joint memo dated 01.08.2018 consenting to extension of time for six months. Time was further extended twice by the Board of Governors. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a memo dated 16.12.2019 contending that the arbitrator's mandate had terminated under Section 29A. The arbitrator passed an order holding Section 29A inapplicable, which was challenged.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the parties had consciously agreed to be governed by the amended provisions of the Act, 2015 by filing joint memos seeking extension of time, which amounts to an agreement under Section 26 of the Amendment Act. The repeated references in office notes to Section 29A and the statutory requirement of extension indicated the parties' awareness and consent.

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitrator was justified in holding that Section 29A was not applicable? (ii) Whether filing of memo dated 01.08.2018 and subsequent extensions amount to an agreement under Section 26?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an agreement to be governed under the Amendment Act can be made by joint memo or conduct. Once parties consciously agree to be bound by amended provisions, they must comply with the statutory requirement of seeking extension under Section 29A, and cannot waive such requirement against the statute.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. the petition raises the question of applicability of section 29a of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 to arbitration proceedings initiated before the 2015 amendment act. (Para 1)
2. the background facts detail the joint development agreement, arbitration clause invocation, appointment of arbitrator, and extensions of time sought by parties. (Para 2)
3. arguments of both parties on whether the joint memo dated 01.08.2018 constitutes an agreement to be governed under the amended act. (Para 3 , 4)
4. court's analysis of section 26 of the amendment act and settled law that the amendment does not apply to pre-amendment proceedings unless parties otherwise agree. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. examination of the joint memo and order sheets to determine whether parties agreed to be governed under the amended act. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
6. court's interpretation of section 29a and rule 23 of the centre rules, and analysis that the joint memo constitutes an agreement under section 26. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
7. court's finding that there was conscious agreement between parties, cannot waive statutory requirement, and extensions were under amended provisions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
8. final order allowing the petition, setting aside the arbitrator's order, and permitting parties to approach competent court for extension of time. (Para 35 , 36)

ORAL ORDER

This petition raises a question with regard to the applicability, or otherwise, of Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act 1996' for short) to the facts of the case, though admittedly, the arbitration proceedings in the instant case were initiated prior to the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 ('Act 2015' for short) coming into force.

2. Brief facts of the case are;

(a) that the petitioners and the respondent No.1 herein had entered into a Joint Development Agreement dated 30.08.2011. Dispute arose between the petitioners and respondent No.1 herein. Since the said Joint Development Agreement contains a clause for resolution of dispute through arbitration and conciliation, respondent No. 1 issued notice dated 04.05.2013 as contemplated under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 invoking the said arbitration clause. The petitioners herein issued a reply on 15.05.2013. A petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 was filed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 45/2014 seeking appointment of an arbitrator, which was disposed of by order dated 26.07.2017 appointing a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties at Bangalore Arbitration Centre as per the Arbitration Centre, Karnataka (Domestic and International) Rules, 2012 (Rules 2012).

(b) Claim statement is stated to have been filed by the respondent No.1 herein on 12.10.2017. Petitioners herein, who are the respondents in the arbitration proceedings, had filed their statement of objections on 06.02.2018 along with a counter-claim. Objection to the counter-claim came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 herein on 01.03.2018.

(c) In the meantime, in view of the amendment to the the Act, 1996 by Act 2015 restricting the duration of arbitration proceedings, the parties filed a joint memo dated 01.08.2018 mutually agreeing to an extension of time for adjudication of the dispute for a period of six months. This was accepted, and the time was accordingly extended. Thereafter, the time has been further extended on two occasions by the Board of Governors of Bangalore Arbitration Centre as per Rules 2012.

(d) Things stood thus, a memo dated 16.12.2019 came to be filed by the petitioners herein, stating that in terms of Section 29A of the Act, 1996, the mandate of the arbitrator had stood terminated. On the said memo, the arbitrator passed the impugned order holding that the provisions of Section 29A of the Act, 1996 as amended by the Act, 2015 were not applicable to the case at hand. Therefore, the extension of time granted by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28714

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JShilpa Datar – AppellantVersusLegancy Global Projects Private Ltd. – RespondentWrit Petition No. 32867 of 2019

An agreement by parties to be governed under the amended Arbitration Act can be inferred from joint memos seeking extension of time, and parties cannot waive the statutory requirement of seeking court extension under Section 29A.

Cases Referred (7)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Shilpa Datar – Appellant
Versus
Legancy Global Projects Private Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 32867 of 2019