Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerned two arbitration petitions filed under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by Indiabulls Infraestate Ltd. seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal. The disputes arose between Indiabulls and two entities, Imagine Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Bliss Habitat Pvt. Ltd., who had booked high-end apartments in the Indiabulls Blu project at Worli, Mumbai. The apartments were allotted to them by Indiabulls, and each had availed loan facilities from Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. for which mortgages were created over the units. After the project was completed and occupation certificate received, the respondents allegedly failed to pay balance amounts, leading Indiabulls to cancel the allotments and repay the loans to release the mortgages. The procedural history included an arbitration initiated by Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. against Imagine and Bliss before a sole arbitrator. In those proceedings, Imagine and Bliss sought to implead Indiabulls, but the arbitrator dismissed the application on 7 November 2020, holding that the cause of action was distinct. Subsequently, on 7 December 2020, the Bombay High Court constituted a separate arbitral tribunal for the Indiabulls Arbitration on an application under Section 11 filed by Imagine and Bliss, with the same sole arbitrator. Pleadings were completed on 19 April 2021. On 22 June 2021, Imagine and Bliss filed an application in the IHFL Arbitration seeking to club the arbitrations and stay the award; that application was rejected on 28 February 2023, and the final award in the IHFL Arbitration was issued the same day, upholding IHFL's appropriation. In the Indiabulls Arbitration, arguments concluded on 10 May 2023 and judgment was reserved. However, before the mandate expired on 31 August 2023, Indiabulls filed an application on 20 June 2023 to bring additional documents on record, which led to further hearings on 24 July and 14 August 2023. The tribunal noted arguments were incomplete and adjourned the matter; the mandate expired on 31 August 2023. Indiabulls then filed the present petitions on 29 September 2023 seeking extension of the mandate. The respondents raised two main objections. First, they contended that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction because although the agreed seat was Mumbai, the arbitration was conducted in New Delhi and witness summons had been issued by the Delhi High Court without objection. Second, they sought substitution of the sole arbitrator, alleging delay and bias arising from the arbitrator's adverse rulings in the IHFL Arbitration, including rejection of impleadment and clubbing applications. The petitioner maintained that the Bombay High Court, having appointed the tribunal, had jurisdiction and that no case for substitution existed. The court heard the parties and reserved judgment on 4 April 2025, pronouncing it on 23 April 2025. In the available text, the court observed that it was not convinced a case had been made out to take the drastic step of substituting the arbitrator, noting that mere adverse rulings in a related arbitration did not establish bias. The final ruling on extension of mandate was not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Extension of Arbitral Tribunal Mandate - Section 29-A Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petitions filed under Section 29-A seeking one-year extension of mandate that expired on August 31, 2023; application remained pending and court considered objections. (Paras 1-2, 14-18) B) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction of High Court - Seat vs Venue - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 29-A - Respondents contended Delhi High Court had jurisdiction because arbitration was conducted in New Delhi despite agreed seat Mumbai; petitioner maintained Bombay High Court as the appointing court had jurisdiction. Available text does not record final ruling on this issue. (Paras 17-19) C) Arbitration Law - Substitution of Arbitrator - Allegations of Bias and Delay - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 29-A, 11 - Respondents sought substitution of sole arbitrator alleging inordinate delay, bias, and prejudgment shown by adverse rulings in related IHFL arbitration; court found no case made out for drastic step of substitution, observing that mere adverse rulings in a separate arbitration do not establish bias. Held that substitution not warranted. (Paras 19-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 29-A when the agreed seat is Mumbai but arbitration was conducted in New Delhi; whether the sole arbitrator should be substituted for alleged delay and bias; whether the mandate of the arbitral tribunal should be extended.
Final Decision
The court was not convinced that a case had been made out to take the drastic step of substituting the sole arbitrator in the Indiabulls Arbitration. The final order on extension of mandate under Section 29-A was not included in the available text.
Law Points
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Section 29-A
- extension of arbitral tribunal mandate
- substitution of arbitrator
- jurisdiction of High Court
- seat of arbitration
- bias
- delay
- Section 11
- court-appointed tribunal
