#Section 29A

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction to extend an arbitral mandate under Section 29A lies exclusively with the 'court' defined in Section 2(1)(e), not the Section 11 appointing authority. A party waives its right to a three-member tribunal by twice consenting to a sole arbitrator and participating for 18 months. The IBC moratorium does not bar a corporate debtor from initiating arbitration to recover dues.

The Calcutta High Court ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement overrides the statutory venue of the West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council for post-award extensions under Section 29A. This decision limits parties’ ability to seek extensions at the WBMSEFC, reinforcing the primacy of contractual forum selection in MSME arbitrations.

The Rajasthan High Court held that revenue must prove both elements of Sec 2(9)(A) of the Benami Prohibition Act and cannot rely on unexamined or retracted statements, even with a Sec 69 income-tax clearance. The ruling shields property owners from benami orders based on untested evidence.

Bombay HC rules that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not govern arbitrations under the National Highways Act, as the latter is a self-contained code. Awards passed beyond statutory timelines remain valid if the arbitrator is appointed by designation, not individually, impacting land acquisition compensation disputes under the NH Act.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that failure to adhere to the 12-month statutory timeline under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act invalidates delays, even without a formal extension request. The court directed the arbitrator to pass the award in the NHAI land acquisition dispute by September 12, 2026, reinforcing arbitrator accountability and the binding nature of statutory deadlines for parties and tribunals alike.

Calcutta High Court rules that contractual designation of the seat of arbitration under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to courts at the seat, superseding objections based on territorial connections or pending stamp duty adjudication. The court also extended the arbitrator's mandate for six months to conclude proceedings, reinforcing the primacy of the seat in determining jurisdiction.

Bombay High Court at Goa dismisses Section 29A application filed in wrong forum, clarifying that commercial arbitration extensions must be filed in the designated Commercial Court with territorial jurisdiction.

Supreme Court clarifies that courts can extend arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A even after award is passed beyond statutory limit, holding such awards unenforceable but not nullifying extension applications.

Supreme Court holds that only the Principal Civil Court or High Court with ordinary original jurisdiction can extend arbitral timelines under Section 29A, regardless of who appointed the arbitrator.