The Bombay High Court at Goa has clarified a critical jurisdictional flaw in arbitration practice, holding that applications for extension of an arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed only in the Commercial Court with territorial jurisdiction, not before the court that appointed the arbitrator. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule and resolves a growing confusion among practitioners regarding forum shopping in commercial arbitrations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Viking Beverages Pvt. Ltd., sought an extension of the mandate of an arbitrator appointed by the Bombay High Court at Goa under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The underlying arbitration concerned a commercial dispute involving a claim value of Rs. 2,39,24,753, which brought the proceedings within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Procedural History
- The application under Section 29A was filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa on the grounds that the arbitrator’s mandate was nearing expiry.
- The High Court had previously heard the matter and reserved orders.
- During the pendency of the application, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (2026 SCC OnLine SC 124), which held that Section 29A applications cannot be filed before the court that appointed the arbitrator.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought an extension of the arbitrator’s mandate to complete the proceedings. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the applicant sought permission to withdraw the application with leave to refile it in the appropriate forum.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act may be filed before the High Court that appointed the arbitrator, or whether it must be filed exclusively in the Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the arbitration.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule to argue that Section 29A applications are not maintainable before the appointing court. They contended that the legislative intent behind the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was to centralize commercial disputes - including arbitration extensions - in designated Commercial Courts, and that the High Court’s role under Section 11 was purely procedural.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not oppose the withdrawal but supported the applicant’s submission that the application was misfiled. Counsel for the respondent emphasized that the Commercial Court at Margao, South Goa, was the only forum with jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, given the nature and value of the claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolving jurisprudence on jurisdictional competence under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act. It noted that prior to Jagdeep Chowgule, some High Courts had entertained Section 29A applications filed before them, even when they were not the courts of original jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jagdeep Chowgule was unequivocal: Section 29A is a substantive provision that must be invoked before the court with original civil jurisdiction as defined under the Arbitration Act, which, in commercial arbitrations, is the Commercial Court.
"The application under Section 29A would not lie before the High Court or before the Court which appointed an Arbitrator under Section 11, but would lie to the Court with original civil jurisdiction, as defined under the Arbitration Act."
The Court further held that the Commercial Court at Margao, being the designated forum for disputes exceeding Rs. 1 crore and having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitration’s subject matter, was the only competent authority. The High Court’s role under Section 11 was limited to appointment, not adjudication of procedural extensions.
The Verdict
The applicant prevailed on the procedural point. The Court dismissed the application as withdrawn with leave to refile before the Commercial Court at Margao, South Goa, within a stipulated period. The Court directed that the refiled application be treated as if filed before the expiry of the arbitrator’s mandate.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Jurisdiction Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must verify the Commercial Court’s territorial jurisdiction before filing any Section 29A application.
- Filing in the appointing court - whether High Court or District Court - will result in dismissal, regardless of merit.
Timing Remains Critical
- The Court’s decision to treat the refiled application as timely filed if submitted by 27.02.2028 reinforces that procedural compliance is non-negotiable.
- Applications filed after mandate expiry, even if refiled correctly, may still face challenges unless the court exercises discretion under Section 29A(2).
Commercial Arbitration Is a Separate Regime
- The Arbitration Act and Commercial Courts Act operate in tandem; Section 29A is not a general procedural tool but a jurisdictionally constrained remedy.
- Arbitrators, parties, and counsel must now coordinate jurisdictional strategy at the outset of arbitration, not as an afterthought.
