Introduction
The case of Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) v. M/s BSC&C and C JV[i] addresses the crucial issue of interpreting the term ‘Court’ under s. 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘A&C Act’). This case examines whether ‘Court’ in s. 29A of the A&C Act refers solely to a district's Principal Civil Court (‘PCC’) or includes the High Court (‘HC’) when it lacks original civil jurisdiction. The decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (‘SC’) clarifies the roles of different courts in arbitration proceedings, aligning with the legislative intent of the A&C Act.
Brief Facts
The dispute originated when the Chief Engineer (NH) PWD (Roads) (‘Petitioner’) challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court (‘CC’), East Khasi Hills, to entertain an application under s. 29A of the A&C Act for extension of the Arbitral Tribunal’s mandate.
The CC affirmed its jurisdiction, prompting the Petitioner to file a revision petition before the Hon’ble Meghalaya High Court (‘MHC’).
The main question in the revision application was whether the expression ‘Court’ in s. 29A of the A&C Act refers to the HC or the PCC in a District. The Petitioner contended that the CC erred by interpreting ‘Court’ in s. 29A of the A&C Act to mean the PCC, as defined in s 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act. and that the power to extend an arbitrator’s mandate, including substituting arbitrators, is inherently linked to the power to appoint arbitrators, which under s. 11(6), the A&C Act is vested with the HC.
The Petitioner further submitted that s. 2 of the A&C Act includes the clause ‘unless the context otherwise requires,’ indicating that ‘Court’ should mean the HC in the context of domestic arbitration, as implied by s. 29A (6) of the A&C Act.
M/s BSC&C and C JV (‘Respondent’) inter alia contended that under s. 2(1)(e) of the A&C Act, the term ‘Court’ includes the PCC of original jurisdiction and the HC only if the latter exercises ordinary civil jurisdiction.
The MHC held that while s. 11(6) of the A&C Act grants HC the power to appoint domestic arbitrators; their jurisdiction ends after the appointment. Assigning PCC authority to extend or substitute arbitrators under s. 29A of the A&C Act, especially when the HC lacks original civil jurisdiction, aligns with legislative intent and avoids anomalous situations.
Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, against which the Petitioner filed this Special Leave Petition before the SC.
Held
The SC, while dismissing the appeal, clarified that ‘Court’ under Section 29A (4) of the A&C Act refers to the PCC of original jurisdiction in a district, including the HC, only if it exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
The SC upheld the decision of the MHC, observing that the power to extend the time for making an award lies exclusively with the court seized of the matter.
Our Analysis
This decision is important as it clarifies the interpretation of ‘Court’ under s. 29A of the A&C Act, specifically delineating the roles of PCC and HC in arbitration proceedings. By ruling that HC without original civil jurisdiction do not qualify under s. 29A of the A&C Act, the decision ensures that the PCC have the authority to extend or substitute arbitrators. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent, maintains consistency with the application of arbitration laws, and avoids potential jurisdictional conflicts. It highlights the importance of context in statutory interpretation, ensuring that the definition of ‘Court’ is applied flexibly yet appropriately to uphold the integrity of the arbitration process. This ruling also guides arbitration proceedings, promoting efficient and fair resolution of disputes.
End Note
[i] Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10544/2024.
Authored by Manmohan Bhola, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.