In a significant ruling clarifying arbitration law in India, the Supreme Court has held that only the principal civil court of original jurisdiction - and not the High Court - can extend the time limit for completing arbitral proceedings under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The verdict came in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors., where the top court overturned orders passed by the Bombay High Court at Goa and restored the decision of the Commercial Court extending the arbitration timeline.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a family settlement dated January 11, 2021, involving members of the Chowgule family. Differences later surfaced, leading to invocation of arbitration in May 2021.
During the proceedings:
- The original arbitrator resigned.
- A new arbitrator was appointed by the Bombay High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act.
- Meanwhile, one party approached the Commercial Court under Section 29A seeking extension of time to conclude the arbitration.
The Commercial Court allowed the request.
However, this order was challenged on the ground that only the High Court - which had appointed the arbitrator - had jurisdiction to extend time.
The Bombay High Court accepted this argument and set aside the Commercial Court’s order, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
Key Legal Issue Before the Court
The central question was simple yet crucial:
When an arbitrator is appointed by a High Court under Section 11, can a Civil Court still extend the arbitration timeline under Section 29A?
Conflicting views of various High Courts on this issue had created uncertainty across the country.
What the Supreme Court Observed
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the Arbitration Act, especially:
- Section 11 (appointment of arbitrators)
- Section 29A (time limit for arbitral awards)
- Section 2(1)(e) (definition of “Court”)
The bench made it clear that:
“Once an arbitrator is appointed, the High Court becomes functus officio. It does not supervise the arbitration.”
Rejecting the idea that a High Court retains control merely because it appointed the arbitrator, the Court observed:
“Jurisdiction flows from statute, not from hierarchy.”
The bench strongly disagreed with the view that allowing civil courts to extend time would create a “conflict of power” with High Courts.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
Clear Interpretation of ‘Court’ Under Section 29A
The Supreme Court ruled that:
- The word “Court” in Section 29A must be read strictly as defined in Section 2(1)(e).
- This means:
- The Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, or
- A High Court only if it has original civil jurisdiction.
The Court clarified that:
“Appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 does not confer supervisory powers on the High Court for the rest of the proceedings.”
It also held that Section 42 of the Act (which fixes jurisdiction based on first application) does not apply to Section 11 proceedings.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Final Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench judgment dated 7 August 2024
- Quashed the Single Judge’s order dated 21 August 2024
- Restored the Commercial Court’s order dated 2 January 2024
- Held that applications under Section 29A must be filed before the Commercial Court, not the High Court
- Allowed parties to seek further extension before the Commercial Court if needed
The Court concluded:
“The power to extend time or substitute arbitrators under Section 29A lies exclusively with the Court defined under Section 2(1)(e).”
No costs were imposed.
Case Title: Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10944–10945 of 2025
Decision Date: 29 January 2026
