Section 29A Extension Power Vests Exclusively with Section 2(1)(e) Court, Overriding Inconsistent Institutional Rules

The arbitration was initiated following a High Court order dated January 7, 2022, appointing a Sole Arbitrator under the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021

Pleadings were completed on June 20, 2022, and after extensive evidence involving 19 witnesses, the parties consensually extended the mandate by six months until December 20, 2023

Subsequent extensions were granted by the High Court under Rule 34.6 of the internal Rules, extending the mandate to June 20, 2025

The petitioners approached the High Court for a further six-month extension to allow the Arbitrator to pronounce the award

The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the High Court's jurisdiction, citing recent Supreme Court precedent

1. Whether jurisdiction to extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A(4) is determined by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of "Court" or by the parties' chosen institutional rules (Rule 34.6)

2. Whether the principle of party autonomy allows parties to confer jurisdiction upon the High Court for mandate extensions via institutional rules, notwithstanding the statutory scheme of Section 29A

3. Whether Rule 34.6 of the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Rules can prevail over the jurisdictional framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that for domestic arbitrations, awards must be made within 12 months, with a maximum six-month consensual extension

Definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e), which refers to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction

The precedent in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule [2026 INSC 92], which established that only the "Court" competent to hear a Section 34 challenge has the power to extend a mandate under Section 29A, regardless of who appointed the arbitrator

Order XLVII of the CPC regarding the limits of reviewing a judgment based on a subsequent change in law

The Court reasoned that Section 29A is a mandatory statutory mechanism that balances party autonomy with judicial oversight; while parties can grant a one-time six-month extension, any further extension is purely a matter of judicial supervision

Although Rule 34.6 of the Arbitration Centre Rules suggests the High Court has jurisdiction, this rule was framed before the Supreme Court authoritatively settled the definition of "Court" in the context of Section 29A

The Court held that subordinate legislation and institutional rules cannot override or supplant the parent statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court

Regarding party autonomy, the Court clarified that such autonomy is limited to areas where the statute is permissive; parties cannot, by agreement, "choose" a court for extension of mandate that the law does not recognize, as jurisdiction is conferred by law, not consent

The petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty for the petitioners to approach the competent Commercial/Civil Court

The Review Application (MCA No. 773 of 2026) was rejected because a subsequent change in law by a superior court is not a valid ground for review under Order XLVII CPC

The Court directed the Registry to place the judgment before the Arbitration Committee to amend Rule 34.6 to bring it into conformity with Supreme Court law