Now Reading: Supreme Court limits High Court power to extend arbitrator mandate
-
01
Supreme Court limits High Court power to extend arbitrator mandate
The Story in Brief
The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot extend an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, merely because it appointed the arbitrator under Section 11. In a judgment delivered on 28 October 2026, Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that the power to extend the mandate rests with the court defined under Section 2(1)(e), the principal civil court of original jurisdiction or a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
The dispute involved South Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. and India Power Corporation Ltd. over a distribution franchise agreement from 31 December 2013. The Patna High Court had appointed a sole arbitrator in 2018 with the parties' consent. On 15 September 2023, the High Court extended the arbitrator's mandate by four months, rejecting the power company's request for a three-member tribunal. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's jurisdiction finding but upheld its other findings, including that the power company had waived objection to the sole arbitrator by consenting to the appointment.
However, the District Commercial Court, Patna, had independently granted a further six-month extension on 23 March 2026. The Supreme Court lifted its earlier restriction on the arbitrator and directed: 'The learned arbitrator shall now conclude the arbitral proceedings by passing the award within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today (Wednesday, 28 October 2026).' Both civil appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The two rulings address different stages of arbitration law but share a thread: both limit how parties and courts can sidestep statutory bars. The Supreme Court, reviewing a Patna High Court order, struck down the High Court's claim that its Section 11 appointment power gave it automatic authority under Section 29A to extend the mandate. It separated the two powers clearly. The Delhi High Court went further, ruling that ineligibility under Section 12(5) is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived by silence or participation, only an express post-dispute written agreement suffices. Together, the judgments reinforce that procedural shortcuts, whether by a court expanding its own power or by a party relying on implied consent, will not override the Act's text. The Supreme Court gave the arbitrator six weeks from 28 October 2026 to deliver the award in the Bihar power dispute.
Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): courtbook.in (neutral report), livelawbiz.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
