Brief Background
In Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10944-10945 of 2025, decided on 29.01.2026), the Supreme Court addressed conflicting High Court rulings on the jurisdictional question: when arbitral proceedings exceed the statutory time limit under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which “Court” has authority to extend the mandate of the tribunal?

The dispute arose from a family settlement dated 11 January 2021 among members of the Chowgule family. Arbitration was invoked under the settlement, and owing to delays and resignation of the presiding arbitrator, applications were filed both before the Commercial Court (for extension under Section 29A) and before the High Court (for appointment under Section 11). The Commercial Court extended the mandate, but this was set aside by the Bombay High Court at Goa, holding that only the High Court could extend time since it had appointed the arbitrator. The issue ultimately came before the Supreme Court for authoritative resolution.

Legal Submissions by the Parties

Appellant:

• It was argued that Section 29A(4) expressly vests jurisdiction in the “Court” defined under Section 2(1)(e), i.e., the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
• Once the High Court appoints an arbitrator under Section 11, it becomes functus officio; supervisory powers over conduct of proceedings lie only with the Court under Section 2(1)(e).
• Further, allowing High Courts to retain control would conflate appointment with supervision, contrary to the scheme of the Act.

Respondents:

• It was argued that permitting Civil Courts to extend mandates of arbitrators appointed by High Courts would create a jurisdictional anomaly, allowing a civil court to substitute arbitrators appointed by the High Court.
• Further, a “contextual” interpretation of Section 29A, relying on the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” in Section 2(1), to hold that in cases where appointment is by the High Court, extension must also lie before the High Court.

Comparative Case Law Analysis

• First Stream (Textual View): Decisions such as Mormugao Port Trust v. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd, (WP No. 3 of 2020 High Court of Bombay at Goa) and Dr. VV Subbarao v. Appa Rao Mukkamala, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1668 held that Section 29A jurisdiction lies with the Court under Section 2(1)(e), regardless of who appointed the arbitrator.
• Second Stream (Contextual View): Cases like Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel v. Bhanubhai Patel 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 5017and DDA v. Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2501 reasoned that Civil Courts cannot extend mandates of arbitrators appointed by High Courts.

Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Bombay High Court at Goa. It held that once an arbitral tribunal is constituted under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the referral court becomes functus officio and has no continuing supervisory role over the arbitral proceedings. The Court emphasized that the scheme of the Act clearly distinguishes between the process of appointment of arbitrators under Chapter III and the conduct of arbitral proceedings under Chapters V and VI. Section 29A, which prescribes time limits for making awards and empowers courts to extend mandates or substitute arbitrators, must be read in conjunction with Section 2(1)(e). Accordingly, the “Court” for the purposes of Section 29A is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, and not the High Court or Supreme Court acting under Section 11.

The Court rejected the “contextual” interpretation adopted by several High Courts, which had reasoned that only the High Court could extend the mandate of arbitrators it had appointed. It clarified that such an approach conflates appointment with supervision, which is contrary to both the text of the statute and the legislative intent. The Court further observed that the power to substitute arbitrators under Section 29A(6) is vested in the Court defined under Section 2(1)(e), and this does not undermine appointments made under Section 11, since the referral court’s jurisdiction is exhausted once the tribunal is constituted. The Court also noted that Section 42, which governs jurisdiction for applications, does not apply to Section 11, thereby reinforcing that applications under Section 29A must be filed before the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e).

Conclusion
By resolving the divergence in High Court rulings, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the jurisdictional framework under Section 29A. The judgment affirms that applications for extension of arbitral mandates must be made before the Court defined in Section 2(1)(e), thereby ensuring consistency. It underscores that the High Courts and the Supreme Court, after appointing arbitrators under Section 11, do not retain supervisory control over arbitral timelines and become functus officio.

By - C. George Thomas and Gurkaranbir Singh