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.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.