Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru in Com.A.A.No.317/2025. The petitioners sought to quash the Commercial Court order which had declined jurisdiction over an application filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings. The Commercial Court had rejected the application on the premise that the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain a Section 29A application when the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11. The petitioners argued through their counsel that the Commercial Court should have considered the application on merits, while the respondents were represented by their respective advocates. The court analyzed the scope and ambit of Section 29A in light of the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncement in Jagdeep Chowgule vs. Sheela Chowgule and Others (2026 SCC Online SC 124). The Supreme Court had conclusively settled that applications for extension of the arbitral mandate under Section 29A must be filed before the 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and this position holds good irrespective of the manner in which the arbitrator was appointed. The High Court reasoned that the competence to consider a Section 29A application is not dependent on the authority which appointed the arbitrator, but is determined solely with reference to the statutory definition of 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e). The court found the Commercial Court's order to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remitted the matter to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing the Commercial Court to expedite proceedings and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Jurisdiction - Extension of Arbitral Mandate - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 29A, 2(1)(e) - Petitioners challenged Commercial Court order declining jurisdiction over Section 29A application on ground that arbitrator was appointed by High Court under Section 11 - Court relied on Supreme Court precedent in Jagdeep Chowgule vs. Sheela Chowgule which settled that Section 29A applications must be filed before 'Court' as defined under Section 2(1)(e) irrespective of appointment method - Held that Commercial Court order was contrary to settled law and matter remitted for fresh consideration (Paras 3-9).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings when the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Com.A.A.No.317/2025 by LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru set aside; matter remitted to Commercial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; parties directed to appear before Commercial Court on 06.04.2026; Commercial Court directed to consider matter afresh keeping in view law laid down by Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from date of receipt of certified copy of order
