Interpretation of Court under Section 29A for extending arbitral mandate

The expression "Court" used under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, corresponds strictly to the statutory definition set out in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. Regardless of whether an arbitral tribunal was constituted by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 11(6) or by mutual consent under Section 11(2), an application seeking extension of time under Section 29A(4) lies before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The definition provided in Section 2(1)(e) remains exhaustive and uniform across Part I of the Act. Consequently, there is no statutory basis to treat Section 29A differently based on how the arbitral tribunal was initially appointed. Courts must strictly adhere to the literal definition defined by Parliament rather than creating judicial exceptions. Lower courts exercising statutory jurisdiction under Section 29A do so pursuant to explicit legislative authority. Therefore, applications for extension of mandate or substitution of arbitrators must be entertained exclusively by the Principal Civil Court. (Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. | 2026 INSC 92)