Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between Appellants and Respondents regarding the arbitration proceedings stemming from a distribution franchise agreement. The appellant, challenged the High Court's decision to extend the mandate of the sole arbitrator, arguing that the agreement required a three-member tribunal. The High Court had previously appointed a sole arbitrator due to the parties' consent, which the appellant later contested. The appellant's objections were based on the claim that the second respondent, a special purpose vehicle undergoing insolvency proceedings, lacked the locus standi to initiate arbitration. The High Court ruled that the appellant had waived its right to object to the sole arbitrator's appointment through its conduct and participation in the proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming its jurisdiction under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to extend the arbitrator's mandate. The court noted that the appellant's previous consent and participation in the arbitration proceedings indicated acquiescence to the sole arbitrator's authority. The court also clarified that the insolvency proceedings did not preclude the second respondent from pursuing arbitration. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, allowing the extension of the arbitrator's mandate to facilitate the completion of arbitration proceedings.
Headnote
Arbitration Law - Extension of Time - Jurisdiction of High Court - Section 29A Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - High Court held it had jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator by four months, affirming that consent and acquiescence by the appellant constituted waiver of the requirement for a three-member tribunal. The court directed the extension to facilitate completion of arbitration proceedings (Paras 3, 11-12, 21-28).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming its jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and dismissed the appeals.
Law Points
- Arbitration
- Extension of Time
- Waiver
- Jurisdiction
- Insolvency
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (10) 95
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9313 OF 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 27403 of 2023) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9325 OF 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 24988 of 2026)
Ujjal Bhuyan J. , Atul S. Chandurkar J.
Mr. Sundaram, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni
South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd.
India Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal concerning arbitration proceedings and jurisdictional issues.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the High Court's order extending the mandate of the sole arbitrator.
Filing Reason
Disputes arose from the distribution franchise agreement leading to arbitration.
Previous Decisions
High Court had previously appointed a sole arbitrator and extended the arbitration period.
Issues
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A.
Whether the appellant waived its right to object to the composition of the arbitral tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the agreement required a three-member tribunal and that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to extend the mandate.
Respondents contended that the appellant had consented to the sole arbitrator and that the extension was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court had jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator under Section 29A, and the appellant's conduct constituted waiver of its right to object to the composition of the arbitral tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
High Court held that the jurisdiction to extend the period of time has to be exercised by the High Court under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The High Court also held that it has the jurisdiction to extend the time of the learned arbitrator under Section 29A of the 1996 Act and exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court extended the mandate of the learned arbitrator by four months.
The consent is evident and acquiescence is clearly indicated which operates as a waiver under Section 4 of the Act of 1996.
Procedural History
The appeals arose from the High Court's judgment dated 15.09.2023, which extended the mandate of the arbitrator and rejected the appellant's request for a three-member tribunal.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 4, Section 11, Section 16, Section 29A
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 9, Section 14
