The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court lacking original civil jurisdiction lacks the authority to extend the time limit for the issuance of an arbitral award under Section 29A of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act").

Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that according to Section 29A(4) of the Act, the authority to extend the time limit for issuing the arbitral award rests with the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. However, they emphasized that a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction is not restricted from extending this time limit.

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, inserted via the 2015 Amendment, sets a maximum period of 18 months for the arbitral tribunal to issue an arbitral award. Sub-section (4) of Section 29A grants authority to the civil court with original jurisdiction to extend this time limit if the award is not issued within the prescribed period.

The case originated from a decision of the Meghalaya High Court, where the appellant's application to extend the time limit for issuing the arbitral award was denied. The High Court declined the application on the grounds that it lacked original civil jurisdiction.

Furthermore, it was observed that if the High Court lacks original civil jurisdiction to extend the time limit for passing the arbitral award, the appropriate court for such an application would be the principal civil court with original jurisdiction.

Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the High Court's decision and affirmed the legal principle established by the High Court.

“The power under sub-Section (4) of Section 29A of the Arbitration Act vests in the Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act. It is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which includes a High Court provided the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction… In this case, the High Court does not have the ordinary original civil jurisdiction… Hence, there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”, the court said.

Case Title: CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PWD (ROADS) VERSUS M/S BSC & C and C JV