In a recent ruling by the High Court of Meghalaya in Arbitration Petition No.2 of 2024 titled as BSCPL Infrastructure Limited Vs. The Addl. Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) Western Zone passed on 23rd of April 2024, the High Court clarified that the mandate of an arbitral tribunal can only be extended by the High Court under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation (A&C) Act if the tribunal was constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act.
The case stemmed from a petition filed under Section 11(4) & (6) of the A&C Act, where the petitioner sought the appointment of the presiding arbitrator. The Court directed the nominee arbitrators of both parties to appoint the presiding arbitrator, following which the tribunal was constituted and proceedings commenced.
However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the arbitral proceedings could not be completed within the stipulated time. The parties mutually agreed to extend the mandate of the arbitrator until a certain date. When the proceedings still couldn't be completed, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking an extension of time for making the arbitral award under Section 29A(4).
While the respondent did not oppose the extension, they raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the petition before the High Court. They argued that since the presiding arbitrator was not appointed by the High Court, the petition should lie before the Principal Civil Court as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
The Court analyzed the situation and noted that although the presiding arbitrator was not directly appointed by the High Court under Section 11(6), it was only pursuant to the court's directions that the nominee arbitrators appointed the presiding arbitrator.
Based on this understanding, the Court emphasized that the mandate of the arbitral tribunal could only be extended by the High Court under Section 29A if the tribunal was constituted following the court's directions under Section 11(6). It held that even though the Court directed the nominee arbitrators to appoint the presiding arbitrator, the mandate of the tribunal constituted in such a manner could only be extended by the High Court, not by the Principal Civil Court.
In support of this conclusion, the Court referred to a previous decision where it was held that when an arbitrator is appointed by the High Court under Section 11, applications under Section 29A must also be filed before the High Court. Allowing such applications to be entertained by the Principal Civil Court could create an anomalous situation where an arbitrator appointed by the High Court could be substituted by a lower Court.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the objection raised by the respondent and proceeded to appoint the arbitrator, affirming the High Court's authority in matters of arbitral tribunal mandates.
