In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court declared that High Courts lacking original civil jurisdiction cannot extend the time limit for passing arbitral awards under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that the authority to extend the deadline for arbitral awards rests solely with the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. However, they noted that a High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction can exercise this power.
This decision follows the stipulations of Section 29A, introduced through the 2015 Amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which mandates that an arbitral tribunal must deliver its award within 18 months. Should the tribunal fail to do so, sub-section (4) of Section 29A allows for an extension by the relevant civil court.
The case in question originated from the Meghalaya High Court, where an appellant’s request to extend the time limit for an arbitral award was denied due to the High Court’s lack of original civil jurisdiction. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, confirming that the appropriate venue for such applications is indeed the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, “The power under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act vests in the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. It is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which includes a High Court provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction… In this case, the High Court does not have the ordinary original civil jurisdiction… Hence, there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
This ruling underscores the importance of jurisdictional clarity in arbitration proceedings and the defined roles of various courts in extending the time limits for arbitral awards.
