Sec 29A Arbitration Act :Power To Appoint Governs Power To Extend?
Live LawThe Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 2015 ushered in several sweeping changes in the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 with the laudable objective to make arbitration a preferred mode of dispute resolution of commercial disputes by seeking to make it efficacious, expeditious and cost effective. This question emerged as while the word used in S. 29A is 'Court', which would then attract the definition of 'Court' as defined in Section 2 of the Act for domestic arbitrations as "being the principal Civil Court jurisdiction of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes". However, the nature of powers that were being exercised under S 29A included powers to substitute an arbitrator, which was essentially in the nature of and linked to the powers of appointment exercisable by the High Court or the Supreme Court alone, as the case maybe, and for this reason, should the term Court in Section 29A be read as the competent High Court, in case of domestic arbitration, which has exclusive power to appoint an Arbitrator and not the District Court, as per Section 2 of the Act. One of the earliest decisions on the controversy is the judgment by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in M/S Urc Construction Pvt Ltd vs Beml Limited where in the context of subsection of Section 29A of the Act the learned Judge has concluded that the power would vest only with the civil court as defined under S 2 of the Act. The controversy seems to have been set at rest for now by a Single Judge of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Delhi Development Authority v Tara Chand', which has held that the term 'Court' in the context of Section 29A of the Act, would be a Court which has the power to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and an application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator would lie only before the Court which has the power to appoint Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act and not with the Civil Courts.