Coimbatore Integrated Waste Management vs Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation

2026:MHC:1034
A. No. 1132 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Application No. 1132 of 2026
Coimbatore Integrated Waste Management
Company Private Limited,
No.2A, Kansas Avenue,
Trilok Apartments, Sitra
Coimbatore - 641 014.
Rep. by its Senior General Manager
Mr. R.Sathya Murti
..Applicant/Claimant
Vs
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
Big Bazar Street,
Coimbatore - 641 001,
Rep. by its Commissioner.
..Respondent
Prayer: Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules
Read With Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to
extend the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of 6 months to
enable the Arbitral Tribunal to pass the Award.
For Applicant: Mr. M. Narendran
for M/s King & Partridge
For Respondent: Mr. K. Magesh
__________
Page1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
ORDER
The applicant is the claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal. After applying
to the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, seeking extension of the mandate of the
Arbitral Tribunal, the applicant has approached this Court for the same relief in
view of the observations/objections of the Commercial Court that jurisdiction
should be ascertained.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and others,
2026 SCC OnLine SC 124 (Jagdeep Chowgule) was brought to the attention of
the Commercial Court, but the Court requested for clarification especially in
view of Practice Direction 7.1 issued pursuant to sub-rule (v) of Rule 12 of the
Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020 (the Arbitration Rules). Learned
counsel also points out that this Court had granted an extension earlier in
A. No.2473 of 2025.
3. Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A&C
Act) enables the Court to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal either prior
to or after the expiry of the period prescribed in sub-sections (1) and/or (3) of
Section 29A. In Jagdeep Chowgule, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined as
__________
Page2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
to which court should be approached for this purpose in matters where the
arbitrator is appointed by a high court and held as under :
“23. Nimet Resources (Supra) clarifies two propositions
of enduring relevance. First, that applications concerning
conduct, continuation, termination or substitution of an
arbitral mandate, whether under Section 14 or otherwise, are
matters of curial supervision and must be instituted before the
"Court” as statutorily defined. Second, that the jurisdiction
exercised under Section 11 is limited and exhausted upon the
constitution of the arbitral tribunal, leading to the appointing
Court becoming functus officio thereafter. These principles
apply with equal force to Section 29A. The extension of
mandate or substitution of an arbitrator under Section 29A
does not partake the character of "appointment" under
Section 11, but is a measure designed to ensure timely
conclusion of arbitration. Absence of any contextual indicia to
the contrary, the expression "Court" in Section 29A must,
therefore, be accorded the meaning assigned to it under
Section 2(1)(e). ”
4. The Supreme Court also took note of the issue relating to the
applicability of Section 42 to proceedings under Section 11 of the statute. In that
context, it was held as under:
“ IX. Applicability of Section 42
25. The analysis would be incomplete without taking note
of Section 42 of the Act, though reference to Section 42 has
__________
Page3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
not been made before the High Court or this Court. Section
42 provides that;
“ 42. Jurisdiction .—Notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time
being in force, where with respect to an arbitration
agreement any application under this Part has been
made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction
over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent
applications arising out of that agreement and the
arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in
no other Court."
26. It may be argued that since application under Section
11(6) for appointment is filed before High Court, all
successive applications, including the one under Section
29A(4) must be made to such High Court. We need not labour
on this issue as a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Co., (2018) 2 SCC 602
affirming the decision in Associated Contracts (Supra) has
held that, solely because a superior Court appoints the
arbitrator, or issues directions or has retained some control
over the arbitrator, it cannot be regarded as a 'Court' of first
instance for purposes of Section 42. In Associated Contracts
(Supra) this Court opined:
“13. It will be noticed that whereas the earlier
definition contained in the 1940 Act spoke of any civil
court, the definition in the 1996 Act fixes "court" to be
the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a
district or the High Court in exercise of its ordinary
__________
Page4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
original civil jurisdiction. Section 2(1)(e) further goes on
to say that a court would not include any civil court of a
grade inferior to such Principal Civil Court, or a Small
Cause Court.
14. It will be noticed that the definition is an
exhaustive one as it uses the expression "means and
includes". It is settled law that such definitions are meant
to be exhaustive in nature—see P. Kasilingam V. P.S.G.
College of Technology [1995 Supp (2) 5CC 348].
16. Similar is the position with regard to
applications made under Section 11 of the Arbitration
Act. In Rodemadan India Ltd. v. International Trade
Expo Centre Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC 651], a Designated
Judge of this Hon'ble Court following the seven-Judge
Bench in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd. [(2005) 8 SCC
618], held that instead of the court, the power to appoint
arbitrators contained in Section 11 is conferred on the
Chief Justice or his delegate.…
*
It is obvious that Section 11 applications are not
to be moved before the "court" as defined but before the
Chief Justice either of the High Court or of the Supreme
Court, as the case may be, or their delegates. This is
despite the fact that the Chief Justice or his delegate
have now to decide judicially and not administratively.
Again, Section 42 would not apply to applications made
before the Chief Justice or his delegate for the simple
reason that the Chief Justice or his delegate is not
“court” as defined by Section 2(1)(e). The said view was
__________
Page5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
reiterated somewhat differently in Pandey & Co.
Builders (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(2007) 1 SCC 467]."
(emphasis supplied)”
5. In view of the categorical conclusion in Jagdeep Chowgule that the
expression “Court” in Section 29A refers to the Court as defined in Section 2(1)
(e) of the A&C Act, an application under Section 29A should be filed before
such court. Whether this position is altered because of the earlier order of this
Court extending time or on account of the Practice Directions issued by this
Court remain to be considered.
6. The earlier order of this Court in A. No.2473 of 2025 was issued on
11.06.2025. This was prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdeep
Chowgule. In that context, this Court exercised jurisdiction by probably taking
into account Practice Direction 7.1. In effect, this Court proceeded on the basis
that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 29A, in a matter wherein this
Court made the appointment of the arbitrator, tantamounts to the exercise of a
continuing jurisdiction by the appointing court.
7. In Jagdeep Chowgule, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 42 of
the A & C Act is not applicable to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11.
__________
Page6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
Although reference was made in Jagdeep Chowgule to the judgment in State of
Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2018) 2 SCC 602 ,
which is a judgment rendered before Section 11 was amended, it should be
noticed that Section 11 empowers only the Supreme Court or the High Court, as
the case may be, or, any person or institution designated by such court, to
appoint an arbitrator. Consequently, the word “Court” does not find place
therein. In contrast, the expression “Court” is used in other provisions of the
A&C Act such as Sections 14, 27, 29A and 34.
8. Therefore, even after the amendment of Section 11, this provision
remains a special provision relating to appointment wherein jurisdiction is
conferred on the High Court with regard to domestic arbitrations and on the
Supreme Court with regard to international commercial arbitration.
Consequently, Section 42 of the A & C Act is not attracted merely because an
extension order was issued on the basis that it is a continuing jurisdiction
exercised by the appointing court. The Supreme Court has settled this debate by
holding that the appointing court becomes functus officio upon making the
appointment, thereby ruling out the right to grant extension thereafter.
9. Turning to Practice Direction 7.1, the said Practice Direction was
issued on 17.03.2021 pursuant to sub-rule (v) of Rule 12 of the Arbitration
Rules. Practice Direction 7.1 is as under:
__________
Page7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
“ 7. Extension of time for making the award, Section
29A(5) of the Act :
7.1 It is appropriate that the application for extension
should be made before the Court, if any, appointing the
arbitrator or any of them.”
These Practice Directions were issued by the Chief Justice pursuant to powers
conferred under the Arbitration Rules. The Arbitration Rules constitute
subordinate legislation framed under Section 82 of the A & C Act. Being
subordinate legislation, neither the Rules nor the Practice Directions can
override the parent statute. Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule interpreting Section 29A , the appropriate
course of action for the applicant is to approach the Commercial Court in
Coimbatore for an extension. Practice Direction 7.1 will not stand in the way
and, in fact, an amendment of such Practice Direction is warranted so as to
bring it in line with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
10. This application is disposed of with the above observations. There
will be no order as to costs.
10-03-2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kj
__________
Page8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
To
Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
Big Bazar Street,
Coimbatore - 641 001,
Rep. by its Commissioner.
__________
Page9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )

A. No. 1132 of 2026
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
KJ
A No. 1132 of 2026
10-03-2026
__________
Page10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 12:45:27 pm )