If appointment of Arbitrator is not by High Court under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction will have the power to entertain an application under Section 29A for extension of the term – Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) Vs. BSC & C and C JV – Meghalaya High Court
April 27, 2024
Hon’ble Meghalaya High Court held that:
(i) The phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” is a provision in Section 2(1)(e), intended by the legislature to allow for flexibility in interpretation and indicates that the definitions given therein, should be understood in accordance with the surrounding context, or specific circumstances, rather than strictly adhering to a literal interpretation.
(ii) Section 2(1)(e) allows the interpretation of the term ‘Court’ to be read, keeping the object of the statute intact, and the same should not result in defeating the purpose, for which the provision i.e. Section 29A was inserted.
(iii) Accordingly, the High Court of Meghalaya does not possess original Civil Jurisdiction, coupled with the fact that, Section 11 nor Section 29A(6) do not come into play in the present case, as the arbitrators were not appointed by the High Court, the Principal Court of original jurisdiction will have the jurisdiction to extend the mandate as prescribed under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act.
