The Gujarat High Court has held that parties to an arbitration cannot, by agreement or by adopting institutional arbitration rules, confer jurisdiction on the High Court to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Holding that statutory jurisdiction cannot be altered by consent, the Court dismissed petitions seeking extension of the sole arbitrator’s mandate as not maintainable and directed that the parties approach the competent court under Section 29A.
Justice Niral R. Mehta was dealing with petitions seeking extension of the mandate of a sole arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021. The petitioners argued that Rule 34.6 of the 2021 Rules specifically empowered the High Court to entertain applications for extension of the arbitral tribunal’s mandate and that the parties, having agreed to be governed by those Rules, were bound by them.
The respondents raised a preliminary objection relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule 2026 INSC 92, contending that applications under Section 29A must be filed before the court having jurisdiction to entertain a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and not necessarily before the High Court that appointed the arbitrator.
Accepting the objection, the High Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act strikes a balance between party autonomy and judicial supervision. While Section 29A(3) permits parties to extend the arbitral tribunal’s mandate by mutual consent for a period of six months, any extension beyond that period can be granted only by the Court contemplated under Section 29A(4). Once the statutory period expires, continuation of the arbitral tribunal ceases to be a matter of party agreement and falls exclusively within the statutory jurisdiction of the court.
The Court rejected the contention that institutional arbitration rules could override the statutory scheme. It observed that although arbitral institutions are competent to frame rules governing arbitral procedure, such rules are subordinate to the parent legislation and cannot dilute or alter mandatory provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Rule 34.6 of the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre Rules, therefore, must yield to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 29A in Jagdeep Chowgule.
Also Read Protesting Government Decisions Is No Ground for Externment: Bombay High Court
The Court emphasised that jurisdiction is conferred by law and not by consent, holding that party autonomy operates only in areas where the statute permits flexibility. It cannot be stretched to enable parties to choose the court that would exercise statutory supervisory powers under Section 29A. Accepting such a proposition, the Court observed, would allow every arbitral institution to determine for itself the forum having jurisdiction, thereby defeating the uniform statutory framework enacted by Parliament.
The Court further held that the earlier extensions of the arbitrator’s mandate granted by the High Court could not preclude the respondents from raising the jurisdictional objection after the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement. The law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution was binding on all courts, and subordinate legislation such as the Gujarat High Court Arbitration Centre Rules had to be construed in conformity with that declaration.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petitions as not maintainable while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent court under Section 29A(4). It clarified that the time spent bona fide prosecuting the proceedings before the High Court would stand excluded while computing limitation, if applicable. The Court also rejected a review application founded solely on the subsequent decision in Jagdeep Chowgule, holding that a later declaration of law cannot constitute a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Recognising the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the High Court directed its Registry to place the judgment before the appropriate committee overseeing the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat, for consideration of suitable amendments to Rule 34.6 to bring it in line with the law declared by the Supreme Court.
