Power u/s 29A(4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act for extension of mandate of arbitrator vests in Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, clarifies Top Court
Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [13-05-2024]

Read Order: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) v. M/S BSC & C and C JV [SC- Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10544/2024] 

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, June 17, 2024: The Supreme Court has recently made it clear that it is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which can exercise its power of extension of mandate ofthe arbitrator under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act. The Top Court also affirmed that the Principal Civil Court can also include a High Court provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

Section 29(A) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the time limit for arbitral award.Sub-section 4 states that if the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period.

While dealing with a Special Leave Petition, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan affirmed, “The power under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act vests in the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. It is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which includes a High Court provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.”

“In this case, the High Court does not have the ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The power under sub-Section (6) of Section 29A is only a consequential power vesting in the Court which is empowered to extend the time”, the Top Court held.

The Bench opined that if the Court finds that the cause of delay is one or all of the arbitrators, while extending the time, the Court has power to replace and substitute the Arbitrator(s). The said power has to be exercised by the Court which is empowered to extend the time as provided in sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.

Finding no merit in the Special Leave Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.