Supreme Court Clarifies Which Court Can Extend Arbitration Timelines Under Section 29A

The Supreme Court has clarified an important question under arbitration law — which court has the power to extend the time limit for completing arbitration proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The ruling came in the case of Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, where there was confusion because the arbitrator had been appointed by the High Court.

What was the issue?

Under Section 29A, arbitration proceedings must normally be completed within a fixed time. If more time is required, parties must approach a “court” for an extension.

However, different High Courts had taken different views on which court should hear such applications:

• Some courts said only the High Court that appointed the arbitrator could extend time.
  
• Others said the civil or commercial court had the authority.
  

This conflict led to the Supreme Court stepping in.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan held that applications under Section 29A must be filed before the civil court or commercial court having original jurisdiction, even if the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11.

The Court made it clear that once an arbitrator is appointed, the role of the High Court or Supreme Court ends. The appointing court does not continue to supervise the arbitration process.

Why is the appointing court not involved further?

The Supreme Court explained that after appointing an arbitrator, the referral court becomes functus officio. This means it no longer has any authority over how the arbitration is conducted.

The Court strongly rejected the idea that High Courts “monitor” arbitration proceedings simply because they appointed the arbitrator. It said such an assumption is legally incorrect.

What does Section 29A actually say?

Section 29A deals with:

• Extension of time for arbitration,
  
• Reduction of arbitrators’ fees in case of delay, and
  
• Substitution of arbitrators if required.
  

The Court said these are part of curial supervision, which Parliament has clearly given to the “court” defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

How is “court” defined?

According to the Supreme Court:

• The “court” under Section 29A means the principal civil court or commercial court with original jurisdiction.
  
• A High Court can exercise this power only if it has original civil jurisdiction, not merely because it appointed the arbitrator.
  

The fact that an arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 is legally irrelevant when deciding jurisdiction under Section 29A.

What about Section 42 of the Act?

The Court also clarified that Section 42, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the court where the first application is filed, does not apply just because a Section 11 application was moved before a High Court.

Final outcome of the case

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision, which had held that only the High Court could extend the arbitration timeline.

It restored the commercial court’s order extending the time and allowed parties to seek further extensions before the commercial court if required.

Why does this judgment matter?

This ruling brings much-needed clarity and consistency to arbitration proceedings across India. It avoids unnecessary jurisdictional disputes and ensures that arbitration remains efficient and time-bound, as intended by law.