Power To Extend Mandate Of Arbitrator Appointed By HC Rests Exclusively With High Court: Calcutta High Court

Justice Shampa Sarkar held that in cases where the referral court is the High Court under section 11, it also becomes the competent court to entertain applications for extension or substitution of arbitrators under section 29A.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the commercial court's conclusion that it had lacked jurisdiction to entertain application under section 29A.

Both parties had filed applications seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate. The Commercial Court while relying on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. rejected the applications holding that in cases where the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under section 11, only the High Court could extend the mandate of the arbitrator.

The Petitioner challenged this rejection arguing that the application was filed before the High Court's decision in Best Eastern was delivered and that as per the Supreme Court's judgment in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads), the commercial court was understood to be the court under section 2(1)(e) competent to extend the mandate. Lastly, it was argued that denying extension at this stage would frustrate the entire process.

Opposing the plea, Al-Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. argued that the Commercial Court correctly applied Best Eastern and that the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD was specific to the facts of that case and did not override the High Court's reasoning in Best Eastern and that since the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court, the mandate could be extended by the High Court alone.

Referring extensively to Best Eastern Business House, the court reiterated that the power to extend the mandate under section 29A(4) and substitute the arbitrator under section 29A(6) is directly connected to the power of appointment under section 11.

“An application under section 29A(4) of the Act of 1996, would lie only before the court which had the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act. In the context of section 10 29A, meaning of the word 'Court', as used therein, must be understood.The provisions of section 2(1)(e) in the context of Section 29A, cannot be interpreted to allow an inferior court to overrule or undo an order of the High Court. The Parliament could not have ever intended the district court to substitute an Arbitrator appointed by the High Court”, the Court observed while quoting Best Eastern Business.

Accordingly, it said that allowing the Commercial Court to replace the arbitrator appointed by the High Court would create an impermissible conflict with section 11. The court emphasised that "the appointing court retains the residual supervisory jurisdiction for the purpose of extending the mandate.”

The court noted that the Meghalaya High Court's decision in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD which was later affirmed by the Supreme Court concerned a situation where the High Court did not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction unlike the Calcutta High Court.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the present petition holding that when the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court, its mandate can be extended by the High Court alone.

Case Title: Cosmic MAPL JV Vs. Al-Amin Garments Haat Private Limited

Case Number:CO 4029 of 2025

Judgment Date: 05/12/2025

Ms. Arati Agarwal, Mr. Udit Agarwal, Ms. Rosy Banerjee …for the Petitioner.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abdul Murshid, Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Mr. Abhidipto Tarafdar …for the Opposite Party.

Click Here To Read/Download Order