Section 29A extension jurisdiction vests in Section 2(1)(e) courts, regardless of the arbitrator’s appointing authority.

The Petitioners challenged an order dated August 22, 2025, passed by the LXXXVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court), Bengaluru, in Com.A.A.No. 317/2025

The Petitioners had filed an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), seeking an extension of time for the Arbitral Tribunal to conclude proceedings.

The Commercial Court declined the application on the ground that the Arbitrator had been appointed by the High Court under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, implying it lacked jurisdiction to extend the mandate

1. Whether an application for extension of the arbitral mandate under Section 29A of the 1996 Act must be filed before the "Court" as defined under Section 2(1)(e), even if the Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 11

Section 29A and Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Jagdeep Chowgule vs. Sheela Chowgule and Others (2026 SCC Online SC 124), which held that the power to extend the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A is vested in the "Court" as defined in Section 2(1)(e), regardless of whether the appointment was made by a superior court under Section 11 or by mutual consent of the parties

The Court noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the controversy regarding the appropriate forum for Section 29A applications

The Court reasoned that the competence to entertain such applications is determined solely by the statutory definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) and is not dependent upon the authority that appointed the Arbitrator

Consequently, even if a High Court or the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Section 11 to appoint the Arbitrator, the jurisdiction to extend the mandate remains with the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction

The Court found the Commercial Court's refusal to hear the application—on the premise that the appointment was made by the High Court—to be contrary to this settled legal position

It held that the jurisdictional "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) is the correct forum for seeking an extension of the arbitral mandate under Section 29A, irrespective of the appointing authority

The matter was remitted to the Commercial Court for fresh consideration on merits, with a direction to conclude the proceedings within four weeks