The Telangana High Court has clarified an important legal position concerning the extension of an arbitrator's mandate under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A bench comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao held that if an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act, then only the High Court has the authority to extend the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A. Any lower court, including a Commercial Court, does not have such power in these circumstances.
The case came before the court through a Civil Revision Petition filed by Smt. Somuri Ravali. She challenged an order passed by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad on February 5, 2025. In that order, the Commercial Court had allowed a petition by Respondent No.1, Somuri Purnachandra Rao, extending the term of the arbitrator in the ongoing arbitration proceedings from September 24, 2024, to March 23, 2025.
By the time the High Court took up the matter, the arbitrator’s extended term had already expired. As recorded in the proceeding on March 25, 2025, the mandate ended on March 23, 2025. However, the petitioner requested the court to provide clarity on the legal issue of jurisdiction: whether the Commercial Court had the legal authority to extend the arbitrator’s mandate.
The High Court examined key provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, especially Section 2(1)(e), which defines the term “Court,” and Section 29A(4), which deals with the extension of an arbitrator’s mandate.
The Court explained that:
Read Also:- Telangana HC Extends Stay on Kancha Gachibowli Deforestation, Case Resumes April 7
“Section 2(1)(e)(i) clearly states that in domestic arbitrations, the term ‘Court’ includes the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and the High Court. It does not exclude the High Court from these matters.”
Furthermore, the judges emphasized that in the present case, the arbitrator was appointed by the High Court itself under Section 11(6). This made the High Court the appointing authority, and hence, it was the only competent forum to decide on extending the arbitrator’s mandate.
The Court clarified:
“Section 29A permits the court to extend the mandate beyond the twelve-month period allowed for arbitration. However, when the arbitrator is appointed by the High Court, only the High Court can exercise this power under Section 29A(4).”
It was also explained that the intention of the law is to maintain a clear hierarchy and ensure that one court handles all matters related to arbitration when it has already exercised its jurisdiction by appointing an arbitrator. Allowing different courts to intervene at different stages would, in the Court’s view, create confusion and contradict the streamlined approach intended by the Act.
Read Also:- 'No Coercive Steps': Telangana HC Halts Tree Felling Near Hyderabad Central University Till Thursday
The High Court distinguished between appointments made by party agreement and those made by court intervention. In consensual appointments, lower courts may have a role. But when the High Court steps in and appoints the arbitrator, it retains control over future proceedings like extensions or substitutions.
“Knocking the doors of different courts at different stages would violate the hierarchy established under the Act,” the Court noted.
The Court also cited earlier judgments to support its view. These included a Division Bench decision by the Bombay High Court in Sheela Chowgule v. Vijay V. Chowgule (2024), which held that applications under Section 29A(4) must be made to the High Court when the arbitrator was appointed by it. Similar views were upheld by the Delhi High Court in Ovington Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Bindiya Nagar and the Calcutta High Court in Amit Kumar Gupta v. Dipak Prasad.
Based on this analysis, the Telangana High Court concluded:
“The extension of the Arbitrator’s mandate in the present case was erroneously permitted by the Commercial Court.”
Although the issue had become academic because the arbitrator’s mandate had already expired, the Court found it necessary to provide legal clarity. The court did not express any opinion on the petitioner’s separate request for substituting the arbitrator.
In conclusion, the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of with the clarification that only the High Court has jurisdiction to extend an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A when it has originally appointed the arbitrator under Section 11(6).
Case Title: Smt Somuri Ravali Versus Somuri Purnachandra Rao
Case Number: CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.739 of 2025
Judgment Date: 10/04/2025
Mr. V. Prasad Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Mr. M.Satyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Rusheek Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
