Mandate Of Arbitration U/S 29A Of Arbitration Act Can Be Extended By High Court Only When Arbitrator Is Appointed By It: Telangana High Court

Brief Facts:

The present civil revision petition has been filed Smt Somuri Ravali (Petitioner) against an order passed by the Commercial Court by which the mandate of the Arbitrator was extended.

By the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, the Commercial Court allowed the respondent No.1's petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act extending the Arbitrator's mandate in the ongoing proceedings between the petitioner, Somuri Purnachandra Rao (Respondent No.1), and others from 24.09.2024 to 23.03.2025.

The question in this case is whether the Commercial Court was empowered to extend the mandate under section 29A of the Arbitration Act.

Observations:

The court observed that It is evident from Section 2(1)(e)(i) of the Arbitration Act that the term “Court” includes the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district as well as the jurisdictional High Court. The provision does not contain any language excluding the High Court from arbitrations under Part I of the Act, i.e., domestic arbitrations.

The court further opined that Section 2(1)(e) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act is hierarchy-sensitive in determining the competent court for matters related to appointment, termination, and extension of an arbitrator's mandate.

It further added that in domestic arbitrations, the High Court is the focal authority under both provisions. While Section 11(6) vests exclusive power in the High Court to appoint an arbitrator, Section 2(1)(e)(i) complements this by ensuring the High Court, as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, retains exclusive authority to extend or terminate the arbitrator's mandate.

Based on the above, the court noted that in the present case, it is evident that the High Court is the appropriate forum, since the Arbitrator was appointed by it under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the High Court, as the appointing authority, holds exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to the extension of the Arbitrator's mandate. This conclusion arises from a combined reading of Section 11(6) and Section 2(1)(e)(ii) of the Arbitration Act in light of the case's factual matrix.

It further said that section 42 of the Arbitration Act, which mandates that all subsequent applications arising out of an arbitration agreement be made to the Court that first received an application under Part I, operates in a different context. It does not apply to applications for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

The Bombay High Court in Sheela Chowgule Vs. Vijay V. Chowgule and others (2024) held that in the event an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the High Court under section 11(6) fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, then an application under section 29A(4) would lie to the High Court in case of a domestic arbitration.

Based on the above, the court held that the extension of the Arbitrator's mandate in the present case was erroneously permitted by the Commercial Court.

Accordingly, all applications were disposed of.

Case Title: Smt Somuri Ravali Versus Somuri Purnachandra Rao

Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2025

Judgment Date: 10/04/2025

Mr. V. Prasad Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. M.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Click here to download Order/Judgement