Delhi High Court interprets the meaning of ‘Court’ under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to mean court that has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11

Brief Facts

DDA (“Petitioner”) filed a petition under Section 29A (“Petition”) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) before the Delhi High Court (“Court”) to extend the mandate of the arbitrator. M/s Tara Chand Construction Co. (“Respondent”) objected to the maintainability of the said Petition on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as the claim value was less than INR 20 million.

The Petitioner argued that it is a fit case for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator as the final arguments had nearly concluded. On the point of maintainability of the Petition, the Petitioner argued that the term ‘Court’, as used in Section 29A, would mean the High Court in the case of domestic arbitration, which also has exclusive power to appoint the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, and not the District Court as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.

Download PDF