Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any application seeking extension of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4) must be addressed to the same High Court and not to the Principal Civil Court or the Commercial Court with territorial jurisdiction over the dispute.

The dispute arose from a partnership deed dated October 16, 2015, between Best Eastern Business House Pvt Ltd and Mina Pradhan. The petitioner, Best Eastern Business House, invoked the arbitration clause in the deed, leading to the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the Calcutta High Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitral proceedings commenced, and the initial statutory period of 12 months from the completion of pleadings expired on October 5, 2024. The parties mutually consented to extend the arbitrator’s mandate by six months, recorded in the minutes of the eleventh meeting held on December 7, 2024, extending the mandate until April 4, 2025.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court | Bail Granted to Former West Bengal Education Minister in Teachers’ Recruitment Scam Case

As the award was not made within the extended period, the petitioner approached the High Court on April 9, 2025, seeking further extension under Section 29A(4) of the Act. The petitioner contended that, since the arbitrator had been appointed by the High Court, the application for extension was maintainable before the same High Court, which also retained the authority to substitute the arbitrator or adjust fees under Sections 29A(4) and 29A(6).

The respondent argued that the application should be made before the Commercial Court at Siliguri, being the principal civil court of original jurisdiction over the subject matter. It was submitted that, once the arbitrator was appointed under Section 11, the High Court became functus officio, and the definition of “court” in Section 2(1)(e) required a textual reading unless the context dictated otherwise.

The matter thus centered on the interpretation of “court” for the purposes of Section 29A(4) when the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court. Both parties relied on previous judgments, including decisions of the Meghalaya, Delhi, Bombay, and Gujarat High Courts, as well as rulings of the Supreme Court, to support their respective positions.

The Court observed that “the power of substitution is a concomitant to the power of appointment” and that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), the High Court retains the supervisory jurisdiction to extend the mandate under Section 29A(4). The Court noted that a strict textual interpretation would result in “an irreconcilable conflict between the power of a superior court to appoint arbitrators and that of a subordinate court to substitute them.”

The Court stated: “When the power of appointment of an Arbitrator has been prescribed in Section 11 of the Act, the power of extension of the mandate and/or constitution of a new tribunal upon substituting the Arbitrator appointed by the High Court would be an exercise of power akin to Section 11 and/or incidental to Section 11.”

The Court further held that “permitting the Commercial Court at Siliguri to assume the power vested in the High Court at Calcutta could never be the legislative intent.” Justice Sarkar observed that “the definition of ‘Court’ in Section 2(1)(e) is not absolute but qualified by the phrase ‘unless the context otherwise requires.’”

The judgment drew upon prior High Court judgements, including Nilesh Ramanbhai Patel v. Bhanubhai Ramanbhai Patel (2018 SCC OnLine Guj 5017), DDA v. Tara Chand Sumit Construction Co. (2020 SCC OnLine Del 2501), and Cabra Instalaciones Y Servicios v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1437). These decisions held that where an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court or Supreme Court, the same court retains jurisdiction to extend the mandate. Justice Sarkar “respectfully adopted the conclusions” of these cases and expressly disagreed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s contrary view in Dr. V.V. Subbarao vs. Dr. Appa Rao Mukkamala & Ors. (2024 1 SCC (AP) 94).

The Court distinguished the Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) decision, noting that in that case, the arbitrator had been appointed by the parties, not the High Court, and that the Meghalaya High Court lacked original civil jurisdiction. Hence, “the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is not a binding precedent in the present factual context.” Justice Sarkar reiterated that the Supreme Court’s observations must be read in context, citing Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 111, which held that “a decision is an authority for what it actually decides, not for what can logically be deduced therefrom.”

The Court finally concluded that a harmonious interpretation of Sections 2(1)(e), 11, and 29A required that the appointing court retain jurisdiction for extension, as “it would be wholly impermissible for a subordinate court to alter, replace, or substitute an arbitrator appointed by a superior court.”

Also Read: ‘Arbitral Award Must Be Within Contract’s Parameters’: Supreme Court Dismisses Chinese Firm SEPCO’s ₹995-Crore Appeal

The Court held that “it is both logical and legally consistent to hold that the High Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of extension under Section 29A and the principal civil court will not have jurisdiction to extend the mandate in this case.”

The judgment recorded: “The mandate of the learned Arbitrator is extended by a further period of one year. The Court does not find any intentional delay or laches either on the part of the learned Arbitrator or on the part of the parties. The proceedings have reached an advanced stage.” The matter, therefore, stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Applicant/Award Holder: Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Advocate; Mr. Arijit Bhowmick, Advocate; Ms. Debasree Mukherjee, Advocate; and Mr. Soumyadeep Dasgupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Subham Ghosh, Advocate; Mr. Dhananjay Nayak, Advocate; and Ms. Tanwishree Mukherjee, Advocate.

Case Title: Best Eastern Business House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mina Pradhan

Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-OS:190

Case Number: AP-COM-296 of 2025

Bench: Justice Shampa Sarkar