Whether it should be High Court which shall be competent to grant the extension under Section 29A(4) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or by considering the term ‘Court’ as defined in Section 2(1)(e), or whether it shall be Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction – K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V. Vs. Municipal Corporation of the city of Ichalkarnji – Bombay High Court
February 26, 2024
Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that the term ‘Court’ used in Sub-Section (4) as well as in the Scheme of Section 29A, would therefore, have to be construed as a ‘Court’ in reference to the context. It is highly inconceivable that an Arbitrator is appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court in case of International Commercial Arbitration and the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district which is sub ordinate to the High Court, shall exercise the power under Sub-Section (4) or or that matter power under Sub-Section (6) of substituting Arbitrator while extending the period referred in Sub-Section 4. Hon’ble High Court concluded that if the meaning assigned to term ‘court’ in Section 2(1)(e) is introduced in Section 29A, it would run contrary to the intention of legislation and defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting a ‘court’ as defined under Section 2(1)(e) to partake the power vested in the High Court to extend the mandate of the Arbitrator and substitute the Arbitrator or Arbitral Tribunal itself.