Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Coimbatore Integrated Waste Management Company Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation – Respondent
Application No. 1132 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. M. Narendran for M/s King & Partridge
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Magesh
The jurisdiction for extending an arbitral tribunal's mandate lies with the court defined in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reaffirming that appointing courts become functus officio after appointment.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 29A(4) - Extension of the mandate of an arbitral tribunal - The applicant sought an extension of time to enable the Tribunal to pass the award. The Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule provided clarity on jurisdiction issues and the interpretation of 'Court' under Section 29A. (Paras 3, 8, 10)
(B) Section 42 - Jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings - The Supreme Court held that the appointing court becomes functus officio after the appointment of the arbitrator, and Section 42 does not apply. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The application is filed to extend the arbitral mandate as the Commercial Court requested jurisdiction clarifications. The applicant previously received a time extension but now seeks reaffirmation from this Court.
Findings of Court:
The appropriate action for the applicant is to seek the extension from the Commercial Court; existing Practice Directions do not supersede statutory provisions of the Act.
Issues: Whether the application for extension should be made to the same court that appointed the arbitrator and the impact of previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The term 'Court' in Section 29A refers explicitly to the definitions under the Act, and is defined to ensure jurisdictional clarity concerning arbitrations. Practice Directions cannot override established law.
Result: Application disposed of with instructions to seek extension from the appropriate court.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the applicant's request for arbitration extension. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding jurisdiction and prior judgments. (Para 2) |
| 3. legal interpretation regarding the meaning of 'court' in section 29a. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. direction for the applicant to approach the commercial court for extension. (Para 9) |
| 5. conclusion of the application with no costs imposed. (Para 10) |
ORDER
The applicant is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. After applying to the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, the applicant has approached this Court for the same relief in view of the observations/objections of the Commercial Court that jurisdiction should be ascertained.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 124 (Jagdeep Chowgule) was brought to the attention of the Commercial Court, but the Court requested for clarification especially in view of Practice Direction 7.1 issued pursuant to sub-rule (v) of Rule 12 of the Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020 (the Arbitration Rules). Learned counsel also points out that this Court had granted an extension earlier in A. No.2473 of 2025.
3. Section 29A (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A&C Act) enables the Court to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal either prior to or after the expiry of the period prescribed in sub-sections (1) and/or (3) of . In Jagdeep Chowgule, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined as to which court should be approached for this purpose in matters where the arbitrator is appointed by a high court and held as under :
“23. Nimet Resources (Supra) clarifies two propositions of enduring relevance. First, that applications concerning conduct, continuation, termination or substitution of an arbitral mandate, whether under Section 14 or otherwise, are matters of curial supervision and must be instituted before the "Court” as statutorily defined. Second, that the jurisdiction exercised under Section 11 is limited and exhausted upon the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, leading to the appointing Court becoming functus officio thereafter. These principles apply with equal force to Section 29A . The extension of mandate or substitution of an arbitrator under does not partake the character of "appointment" under Section 11, but is a measure designed to ensure timely conclusion of arbitration. Absence of any contextual indicia to the contrary, the expression "Court" in must, therefore, be accorded the meaning assigned to it under Section 2(1)(e). ”
4. The Supreme Court also took note of the issue relating to the applicability of Section 42 to proceedings under Section 11 of the statute. In that context, it was held as under:
“IX. Applicability of Section 42
25. The analysis would be incomplete without taking note of Section 42 of the Act, though reference to Section 42 has not been made before the High Court or this Court. Section
42 provides that;
“42. Jurisdiction.—Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court."
26. It may be argued that since application under Section
11(6) for appointment is filed before High Court, all successive applications, including the one under Section 29A (4) must be made to such High Court. We need not labour on this issue as a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Co. , (2018) 2 SCC 602 affirming the decision in Associated Contracts (Supra) has held that, solely because a superior Court appoints th
