Power Of High Court To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Is “Co-Extensive” With Power To Appoint Arbitrator: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court has held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), an application under section 29A(4) seeking extension of the mandate of the arbitrator can be entertained by the High Court only and not by the Principal Civil Court or Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. Justice Shampa Sarkar held that while section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act defines a court as the principal civil court or the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction, the definition is qualified by the expression unless the context otherwise requires. Therefore, in the context of section 29A, the arbitrator's mandate can be extended by the High Court when the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court. It further held that permitting the commercial court to extend the mandate of the arbitrator appointed by the High Court would create jurisdictional conflict which goes against the objective of sections 11 and 29A of the Arbitration Act. The court relied on various judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court, Gujarat High Court and Bombay High Court where it was held that the High Court retains the jurisdiction to extend the arbitrator's mandate when the High Court appoints the arbitrator. Justice Sarkar observed that “No doubt that, once the arbitrator is appointed under Section 11(6) of the Act, the court appointing the arbitrator becomes functus officio for the purpose of the arbitration proceeding before the arbitrator. However, that can never take away the power of the court which appointed the arbitrator under section 11(6) to extend the mandate and such power of extension is not an empty formality.” The court while distinguishing the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC&C JV held that the Apex Court affirmed the decision of the Meghalaya High Court not extending mandate of the arbitrator under section 29A on the ground that the High Court had not appointed the arbitrator and did not exercise original civil jurisdiction. The ratio of that judgement cannot be applied in cases where the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court. Background: The dispute arose out of a partnership deed dated 16 October 2015. Arbitration was invoked by Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, an application was also filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act before the High Court. An advocate from the Bar Library Club was appointed as sole arbitrator. The period of 12 months as mandated under section 29A expired on 5 October 2024. The parties agreed to extend the mandate by six-month, extending the mandate until 4 April 2025. On 9 April 2025, the petitioner approached the High Court for further extension under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act. The respondent submitted that in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD, an application seeking extension of the arbitrator's mandate could only be filed before the principal civil court/Commercial Court at Siliguri. The petitioner submitted that if such an interpretation is adopted, it would defeat the very purpose of section 29A of the Arbitration Act and allow a court subordinate to the High Court to substitute the arbitrator appointed by the High Court. Findings: The court held that the power of substitution and extension under section 29A are co-extensive with the power of appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. It held that the appointing authority retains a residual supervisory jurisdiction limited to the purpose of extending the mandate of the arbitrator. “A textual interpretation of the term will result in an anomalous situation… it is both logical and legally consistent to hold that the High Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of extension under Section 29A and the principal civil court (Commercial Court at Siliguri) will not have jurisdiction to extend the mandate in this case,” the Court said. Accordingly, the present petition was allowed and the mandate was extended by one year. Case Title:Best Eastern Business House Pvt Ltd. vs. Mina Pradhan Case Number: AP-COM - 296 of 2025 Judgment Date: 23/09/2025 For the Applicant/Award holder: Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arijit Bhowmick, Adv. Ms. Debasree Mukherjee, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Soumyadeep Dasgupta, Adv Mr. Subham Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Adv. Ms. Tanwishree Mukherjee, Adv. Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Power Of High Court To Extend Arbitrator's Mandate Is “Co-Extensive” With Power To Appoint Arbitrator: Calcutta HC

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Tags