The court determines jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and concludes the petition is not maintainable.

JUDGMENT

Applicant in A.R.No.16/2020 has filed this petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 to substitute the Arbitrator and to extend the time for completion of the arbitral proceedings arising from A.R.No.16/2020.

2. While this petition was pending, a Division Bench of this Court considered a reference made by a learned Single Judge with the intention to resolve conflicting views regarding the court competent to consider applications under Section 29A and to pass orders thereunder.

3. The Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine Ker 10899] answered the reference holding that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC & C and C JV [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1801] , the power under Section 29A vests in the court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is the Principal Civil Court in a district and includes the High Court, provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

4. Thus, the resultant position emerging from the order of the Division Bench in the reference is that this Court, not conferred with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, cannot entertain applications under Section 29A and pass orders.

5. Faced with the circumstances mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the learned counsel for the petitioner endeavored to critically analyse the order passed by the Division Bench and submitted that the same would require reconsideration by a larger bench. He, as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, was therefore heard at length. Relying on various reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of different High Courts, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the view adopted by the Division Bench is not correct in law and would lead to incongruity in the judicial hierarchy for the reason that Arbitrators nominated by the High Court would be substituted by the District Courts. He submitted that the view of another Division Bench of this Court in Lots Shipping Company Limited v. Cochin Port Trust [2020 SCC OnLine Ker 21443] was the correct view wherein the Division Bench gave emphasis to the hierarchical difficulties and adopted a construction that obviated the same. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra supported the order passed by the Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures Limited (supra) and contended that in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads)(supra), the view adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in Lots Shipping Company Limited (supra) cannot be considered as good law anymore. She therefore contended that there is no reason to make any reference doubting the correctness of the conclusions of the Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures Limited (supra).

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently addressed the very same issue in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and Others [2026 SCC OnLine SC 124]. The Apex Court held as under in the said judgment:-

“11. As we are concerned with the jurisdiction and powers of the ‘Court’ under Section 29A , the said provision as well as the definition of ‘Court’ in Section 2(1)(e) are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.

“Sec. 29A. Time limit for arbitral award.—(1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.

Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon th