Supreme Court Holds That Applications for Extension of Arbitral Time Limit Under Section 29A Must Be Filed Before the Principal Civil Court as Defined in Section 2(1)(e), Regardless of Appointment Under Section 11

Case Name: Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 92
Date of Judgment/Order: 29 January 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan

Held: The Supreme Court held that the expression “Court” in Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be interpreted strictly in accordance with the definition contained in Section 2(1)(e), and therefore applications seeking extension of time for making an arbitral award or substitution of arbitrators lie before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (or the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction, where applicable), and not before the High Court or Supreme Court merely because the arbitrator was appointed under Section 11.

Summary: The dispute arose from a family settlement agreement containing an arbitration clause, pursuant to which arbitration was invoked and an application for extension of time under Section 29A was filed before the Commercial Court. During pendency, an arbitrator was appointed by the High Court under Section 11, leading to a jurisdictional objection that only the High Court could extend the arbitral mandate. Conflicting views of various High Courts on the interpretation of “Court” under Section 29A resulted in a reference to a Division Bench, which held that jurisdiction depended on whether the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court or by parties. The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of the scheme of the Arbitration Act, the limited and exhausted nature of Section 11 jurisdiction, the doctrine of functus officio, and prior precedents including SBP & Co., Nimet Resources, and Associated Contractors, and rejected the theory of hierarchical or contextual deviation from the statutory definition.

Decision: The appeals were allowed, the judgments of the Division Bench and Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa were set aside, the order of the Commercial Court extending the arbitral mandate under Section 29A was restored, and liberty was granted to the parties to seek further extension before the Commercial Court in accordance with law, with no order as to costs and all pending applications disposed of.