Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy finally dismissed the revision petition and upheld the competence of the City Civil Court to extend an arbitrator’s mandate. The dispute concerned a statutory corporation questioning the jurisdiction of the Civil Court after it granted an eight-month extension for completion of arbitral proceedings, alleging it lacked authority to extend the arbitrator’s mandate. The High Court held that applications for extension under Section 29A(4) fall within the authority of the Civil Court having original jurisdiction in the district, as defined under Section 2(1)(e), and not the court that appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6). The court declined interference and confirmed the validity of the extension order.

The dispute arose out of agreements executed between a corporation and a healthcare company, which were referred to arbitration by the High Court of Telangana through appointment of a sole arbitrator in 2019. The arbitral proceedings continued until December 2020, when the mandate of the arbitrator expired.

Also Read: Motor Accident Claims | Fake Licence By Driver Not Enough For Insurer To Recover Compensation From Vehicle Owner Without Proving Lack Of Due Diligence In Driver Engagement : Supreme Court

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court excluded the period between March 2020 and March 2021 from computation of limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The healthcare company thereafter approached the trial court seeking extension of time for completion of arbitral proceedings. The trial court granted an extension of eight months subject to payment of costs.

The corporation challenged this order, contending that only the High Court had jurisdiction to extend the mandate since the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court. It relied on decisions of other High Courts to support its position. The healthcare company argued that the principal civil court of original jurisdiction had authority under Section 29A of the Act to extend the mandate. The trial court’s order was therefore defended as valid. The statutory provisions invoked included Sections 11(6), 29A(4), and 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice P. Sam Koshy recorded: “The only ground of challenge assailing the impugned order whereby the Trial Court had granted extension of time in an arbitration proceedings was on the ‘jurisdiction’ part.”

The Court stated: “whether in an arbitration petition seeking for extension of time under Section 29A(4) of Act of 1996, would it be the High Court for the State of Telangana…or would it be the concerned jurisdictional Civil Court in the District which has the power to decide matters relating to grant of extension of time under Section 29A(4) of Act of 1996?”

On Section 11(6), the Court observed: “Section 11(6) prescribes that only the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction and power to decide the same.” On Section 29A, the Court recorded: “when we read Sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Act, it is the principal Civil Court which has been referred to and not the Court which had appointed the Arbitrator.”

The Court further stated: “Thus, the framers of the law had clearly drawn the distinction while exercising powers under Section 11(6) of the Act vis-à-vis Section 29A of Act of 1996.”

Referring to Section 2(1)(e), the Court noted: “In the teeth of aforesaid definition, if we read Section 29A of the Act keeping in mind the definition of ‘Court’…this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that when it comes to proceedings under Section 29A, it would be the jurisdictional District Court which would have the power for exercising the same.”

On precedents cited, the Court stated: “those decisions were rendered by the respective High Courts where the High Court simultaneously had original side jurisdiction unlike the High Court for the State of Telangana; therefore, the decisions relied upon…are in itself distinguishable on its own facts.”

The Court also recorded: “if the law makers were of the view that the extension or termination of the mandate was to be done by the same Court which had allowed a petition under Section 11(6)…then the provision of law would have been to simply confer power…rather than specifically mentioning the power being with the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District.”

Finally, the Court observed: “Another reason which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order is that the issue of jurisdiction was not the focal point of contention while deciding the above A.O.P.No.172 of 2023 by the Trial Court.”

Also Read: Telangana High Court Upholds Detention Of Man Accused Of Robbing Jewellery Stores, Including One While On Bail; Dismisses Father’s Habeas Corpus Plea

The Court directed: “For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The Civil Revision Petition being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. G. Pavan Kumar.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Ravi, Senior Counsel representing M/s. R.S. Associates.

Case Title: M/s. ESI Corporation vs. M/s. Quality Care India Limited (Care Hospitals) and another
Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 889
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No.3701 of 2025
Bench: Justice P. Sam Koshy