Power To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Lies With Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction, Not Appointing Court: Telangana High Court

Justice P. Sam Koshy held that the mandate of the arbitrator under section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) can be extended by the court as defined under section 2(1)(e) which expressly included the city civil court having original jurisdiction, not the court that appointed the arbitrator under section 11(6).

The dispute arose out of agreements signed in 2013 and 2014 between ESI and CARE Hospitals. An application under section 11 was filed seeking appointment of arbitrator after a dispute having arisen between the parties.The arbitration proceedings continued and subsequently terminated due to expiry of the statutory period.

Arbitration applications were filed under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act seeking for extension of time in the light of exclusion of the COVID period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 for computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration Act.

The City Civil Court allowed the applications and the mandate of the arbitrator was extended by eight months.ESI Corporation had filed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) challenging the extension stating that only the court that appointed the arbitrator could extend the mandate.

ESI Corporation submitted that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the mandate of the arbitrator since the appointment was made by the High Court. Opposing the submissions, the CARE Hospitals contended that section 29A uses the word court as defined under section 2(1)(e) which clearly refers to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. It was further argued that the trial court possessed the exclusive jurisdiction to extend the mandate.

Rejecting the ESI Corporation's submissions, the court observed that section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act deals with the appointment of the arbitrators and specifies the High Court as the appointing authority.

The court further observed that however, section 29A(4) refers only to court as defined under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act which expressly includes the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

“If we read Section 29A of the Act keeping in mind the definition of “Court” as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that when it comes to proceedings under Section 29A, it would be the jurisdictional District Court which would have the power for exercising the same and which is distinct to Section 11(6) of the Act”, the court held

If the legislature intended to confer power to extend the mandate on the same court that appointed the arbitrator, it would have expressly stated so. Instead, the act delineates the two powers separately, the court observed.

The court observed that “when it comes to appointment of an Arbitrator at the first instance, Section 11(6) prescribes that only the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction and power to decide the same; whereas, when we read Sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Act, it is the principal Civil Court which has been referred to and not the Court which had appointed the Arbitrator. Thus, the framers of the law had clearly drawn the distinction while exercising powers under Section 11(6) of the Act vis-à-vis Section 29A of Act of 1996.”

The High Courts in Ovington Finance Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bindiya Nagar, Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mina Pradhan and Sheela Chowgule vs. Vijay V. Chowgule and others had ordinary original civil jurisdiction unlike the Telangana High Court. Therefore, these judgments cannot override the statutory scheme applicable in State of Telangana.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition holding that the power to extend the arbitrator's mandate lies with the court as defined under section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, not the court that appointed the arbitrator.

Case Title: M/s.ESI Corporation VERSUS M/s.Quality Care India Limited (care hospitals)

Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No.3701 of 2025

Judgment Date: 21/11/2025

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mr.G. Pavan Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent(s) : Mr.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.R.S. Associates

Click Here To Read/Download Order