The Jurisdictional Conundrum Of Section 29a: Analysing The Supreme Court’s Resolution And The Principle Of Minimal Intervention
- IJLLR Journal
- Mar 6
- 2 min read
Sarthak Rai, Apoorva Jamra & Arpit Meena,National Law Institute University, Kerwa Dam Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was introduced by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, to address chronic delays in Indian arbitral proceedings. By prescribing a twelve-month time limit for making an award in domestic arbitrations, extendable by consent and thereafter by court order, the provision marked a significant shift from the earlier model that emphasised party autonomy and minimal judicial intervention. While the reform sought to enhance efficiency and credibility, it generated interpretative and structural challenges, particularly concerning the meaning of “Court” under Section 29A(4). A central controversy emerged where arbitrators were appointed by High Courts under Section 11: whether applications for extension of mandate should lie before the appointing High Court or the principal civil court defined in Section 2(1)(e). This article examines the legislative background, doctrinal development, and judicial resolution of this controversy. Part II traces the evolution of Section 29A, including the changes introduced by the 2019 Amendment and its structural placement within Part I of the Act. Part III analyses the conflicting approaches adopted by various High Courts, highlighting the tension between purposive and textual interpretation. Part IV evaluates the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors., which clarified that jurisdiction under Section 29A(4) lies exclusively with the court defined in Section 2(1)(e). Part V critically assesses the implications of this ruling for judicial hierarchy, arbitral efficiency, and the principle of minimal intervention under Section 5. Part V situates the Indian framework within comparative practice, examining approaches in England, Singapore, France, and Switzerland. The article concludes that while the Supreme Court has resolved the immediate jurisdictional ambiguity, further legislative refinement is necessary to balance expedition, institutional capacity, and arbitral autonomy in India.
