This ruling resolves a conflict within the Bombay High Court, which stemmed from differing interpretations of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act in previous cases.
The controversy arose from two conflicting judgments that created uncertainty over which court had the authority to extend the time for arbitration proceedings.
In the first case, Mormugao Port v. Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd (2020), the Court held that district courts have jurisdiction under Section 29A when the arbitral tribunal is constituted by an agreement between the parties. This interpretation allowed district courts to extend the time for arbitration proceedings.
However, in the 2024 judgment of KIPL Vistacore InfraProjects JV v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ichalkarnji, a different Bench of the Bombay High Court held that only the High Court has the power to extend the time under Section 29A, even in cases where the arbitral tribunal is constituted by an agreement.
This inconsistency led to significant legal uncertainty, prompting Justice Bharat P Deshpande to refer the matter to a larger Bench in April 2024 for a definitive interpretation.
Source: Barandbench
