If an Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the High Court under Section 11(6), an application under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration Act would lie to the High Court and if an Arbitral Tribunal constituted as per Section 11(2), the application under Section 29A(4) would lie to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction – Sheela Chowgule Vs. Vijay V. Chowgule and Ors. – Bombay High Court
The Larger Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the term “Court” for the purpose of Section 29A(4) would be the “Court” which appointed the Arbitrator(s) under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act i.e. the High Court in the present case and therefore, answer the reference thus :
(i) 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.
(ii) In answer to the second question, we opine that in the event an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three Arbitrators is constituted as per Section 11(2) i.e. with agreement and consent of the parties, fails to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period/extended period, the application under Section 29A(4) would lie to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original jurisdiction.
