Calcutta High Court Affirms Its Exclusive Jurisdiction in Extending Arbitrator Mandates

Commercial Court's Rejection of Petitioner's Application Highlights High Court's Supervisory Role

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has reiterated its exclusive jurisdiction in matters related to the extension of arbitrator mandates under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment was delivered by Justice Shampa Sarkar, who dismissed a revisional application challenging the Commercial Court's decision to reject an application for the extension of an arbitrator's mandate.

The case, Cosmic MAPL JV v. Al-Amin Garments Haat Private Limited, involved a dispute where both parties had initially approached the Commercial Court at Rajarhat. However, the application was rejected on the grounds that the High Court, being the appointing authority, retains the supervisory jurisdiction to extend such mandates. The rejection was based on the precedent set in Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. v. Mina Pradhan, where it was held that the Commercial Court lacks the jurisdiction to overrule an order of the High Court.

Justice Sarkar emphasized the contextual interpretation of the term 'Court' under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, asserting that the High Court, as the appointing authority under Section 11, is the appropriate forum for such applications. The judgment aligns with the legislative intent to prevent inferior courts from interfering with orders passed by the High Court, especially concerning the substitution of arbitrators.

The petitioner, represented by Ms. Arati Agarwal, argued that the application was initially filed in the Commercial Court based on a previous understanding of the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC & C and CJV. However, the High Court clarified that its decision in Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. prevails, mandating that applications for the extension of arbitrator mandates must be decided by the High Court when it is the appointing authority.

The judgment underscores the harmonious interpretation of statutory provisions, ensuring that the power of the High Court to extend and substitute arbitrators remains intact. While the Commercial Court dismissed the application due to lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner is not without recourse and can file an appropriate application before the High Court under Section 29A.

This ruling reinforces the High Court's role in maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process and ensures that the legislative framework governing arbitration proceedings is applied consistently.

Bottom Line:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Definition of 'Court' under Section 2(1)(e) and its contextual interpretation under Section 29A - High Court has exclusive jurisdiction to extend the mandate of an arbitrator appointed by it, as the power of substitution is concomitant to the power of appointment.

Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1)(e), 11, 29A(4), 29A(5)

Cosmic MAPL JV v. Al-Amin Garments Haat Private Limited, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2821867