Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Extension of Arbitration Proceedings Time Limit, Principal Civil Court Holds Authority Under Section 29A, Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting High Court Interpretations
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the jurisdictional ambiguity surrounding the extension of time for arbitration proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judgment, delivered on January 29, 2026, in the case of Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, resolves conflicting interpretations by various High Courts regarding which court holds the jurisdiction to extend the time for arbitration proceedings.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, examined whether an application for extension under Section 29A should be filed in the High Court or the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The case arose from a dispute within the Chowgule family, prompting arbitration proceedings under a Memorandum of Family Settlement. The Commercial Court's decision to extend the arbitration timeline was challenged, leading to a referral to the Bombay High Court, which ruled that the High Court should handle such extensions if it appointed the arbitrator.
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing that the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is the appropriate forum for such applications, regardless of whether the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court or by party consent. The Court highlighted that once an arbitrator is appointed, the appointing court becomes functus officio, and its role does not extend to supervising ongoing proceedings.
This landmark decision aligns with the legislative intent of promoting efficiency and integrity in arbitration, ensuring that jurisdictional clarity does not hinder the timely resolution of disputes. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to statutory definitions and dismissed concerns of jurisdictional hierarchy or anomalies as unfounded.
Bottom Line:
The Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or High Court (if it exercises original civil jurisdiction) is the appropriate "Court" under Section 29A for extension of time for arbitration proceedings, irrespective of the arbitral tribunal being constituted by High Court or by consent of the parties.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 2(1)(e), 11, 29A, 42
Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845193
