Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Coimbatore Integrated Waste Management Company Private Limited, is the claimant in an arbitration proceeding. The arbitral tribunal's mandate was expiring, and the applicant sought an extension under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Initially, the applicant approached the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, but that court raised observations/objections regarding jurisdiction, prompting the applicant to file the present application before the Madras High Court. The applicant had previously obtained an extension from the High Court in A. No.2473 of 2025. The respondent, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, did not oppose the extension. The key legal issue was which court has jurisdiction to extend the mandate under Section 29A(4) when the arbitrator was appointed by a High Court. The applicant's counsel relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 124, which clarified that the expression 'Court' in Section 29A must be given the meaning under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, and the appointing court becomes functus officio after the tribunal is constituted. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court's reasoning, noting that extension of mandate is a curial supervision measure, not an appointment under Section 11. The court also considered Practice Direction 7.1 under the Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020, but found that the jurisdiction lies with the court as defined under Section 2(1)(e). Since the arbitration is a commercial dispute and the value exceeds the threshold, the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, is the appropriate court. However, given the earlier extension granted by the High Court and the need for expeditious disposal, the High Court allowed the application and extended the mandate by six months from the date of the order, directing the arbitral tribunal to pass the award within that period.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Extension of Arbitral Mandate - Section 29A(4) read with Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Jurisdiction - The applicant sought extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate after the Commercial Court raised jurisdictional concerns. The High Court, following Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, held that the expression 'Court' in Section 29A must be accorded the meaning under Section 2(1)(e), and the appointing court becomes functus officio after constitution of the tribunal. The extension of mandate is a measure of curial supervision, not appointment under Section 11. Held that the application for extension lies before the court as defined under Section 2(1)(e), not the appointing court (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Which court has jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when the arbitrator was appointed by a High Court?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application and extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by a period of six months from the date of the order, directing the tribunal to pass the award within that period.
Law Points
- Extension of arbitral mandate under Section 29A(4) is a measure of curial supervision
- not appointment under Section 11
- 'Court' in Section 29A means court as defined in Section 2(1)(e)
- Appointing court becomes functus officio after constitution of tribunal
- Section 42 does not apply to Section 11 proceedings.
