THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2025 Mr. V. Prasad Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. M.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad in Commercial Original Petition No.131 of 2024.

2. By the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, the Commercial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.1 under section 29A of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for extending the mandate of the learned Arbitrator for 6 months in an ongoing arbitration proceedings between the petitioner, the respondent No.1 and others. The Commercial Court extended the mandate of the Arbitrator from 24.09.2024 till 23.03.2025.

3. The matter was first taken up on 07.03.2025 and continued for a few days thereafter. The Court was informed on 25.03.2025 that the mandate of the Arbitrator had come to an end on 23.03.2025. This fact was recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 25.03.2025.

4. Therefore, the adjudication of whether the Commercial Court had the jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator became academic and has remained so since

23.03.2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, insisted for the Court to express its opinion on the question of law involved in the matter, i.e., whether the Commercial Court was the “Court” as defined under section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act and whether it was authorised to grant an extension of the mandate.

6. The cornerstones of the discussion are section 2(1)(e) and section 29A(4) of the Act.

7. Section 2(1) of the Act defines several terms and expressions used in the Act, making the definitions specific to Part I of the Act and also specific to the context.

Section 2(1) of the Act begins with the following words:

“In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires .....”

Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines the term ‘Court’ as under:

“(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;”

8. Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Act contemplates international commercial arbitrations. Since the present arbitration falls under Part I of the Act, the definition of “Court” in the context of international commercial arbitration is not relevant and is hence not set out above. To clarify, Part I applies to arbitrations where the place of arbitration is in India: section 2(2) of the Act.

9. It is evident from section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Act that the “Court” would be the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and would include the jurisdictional High Court. Section 2(1)(e)(i) does not contain any language which specifically excludes the High Court from arbitrations under Part I of the Act, i.e., those that are not international commercial arbitrations.

10. “International commercial arbitration” is defined under section 2(1)(f) of the Act as an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of commercial legal relationshi