"Court" under Section 29A refers to Section 2(1)(e) definition, not the appointing High Court.

The applicant, the claimant in an ongoing arbitration, filed an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("A&C Act"), seeking a six-month extension of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate.

The applicant originally approached the Commercial Court, Coimbatore, but that court questioned its own jurisdiction in light of Practice Direction 7.1 of the Madras High Court (Arbitration) Rules, 2020, which suggests such applications should be made to the court that appointed the arbitrator.

The applicant then approached the High Court, noting that the High Court had previously granted an extension in the same matter in 2025.

The Court applied Section 29A(4) of the A&C Act regarding the extension of mandates and Section 2(1)(e) defining "Court".

It relied heavily on the Supreme Court precedent *Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule* (2026 SCC OnLine SC 124), which established that: (a) "Court" in Section 29A refers strictly to the Section 2(1)(e) definition; (b) Section 42 (jurisdictional seat) does not apply to Section 11 appointments; and (c) the appointing court under Section 11 becomes *functus officio* once the tribunal is constituted.

The Court also noted that Section 82 of the A&C Act governs the making of rules, but subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute.

The Court reasoned that despite the Madras High Court’s Practice Direction 7.1—which recommends that extension applications be filed in the appointing court—the Supreme Court in *Jagdeep Chowgule* has since clarified the law.

The High Court observed that Section 11 is a special power for "appointment" and does not confer "continuing jurisdiction" over the arbitration.

Since Section 29A uses the term "Court" (unlike Section 11), it must mean the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

The Court further clarified that even though it had granted an extension previously in 2025, that order predated the *Jagdeep Chowgule* ruling and thus did not create a binding jurisdictional precedent for this application.

It ruled that Practice Direction 7.1, as subordinate legislation, cannot override the A&C Act or the Supreme Court’s interpretation thereof, and noted that the Practice Direction requires amendment to align with current law.

The application was disposed of with instructions to approach the appropriate Commercial Court.