THE JURISDICTIONAL DEMARCATION FOR ARBITRATOR'S MANDATE EXTENSION: A CONFLUENCE OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), stands as a pivotal legislative framework designed to foster expeditious and efficient dispute resolution in India.

- Adv Sherry Samuel Oommen

I. Introduction

A cornerstone of this framework is the principle of minimal judicial intervention, ensuring that arbitral proceedings progress with autonomy and finality. However, the intricate interplay of various provisions within the Act has, at times, led to jurisdictional ambiguities, particularly concerning the appropriate forum for certain applications. One such critical area of contention has been the jurisdiction for extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal under Section 29A of the Act. This article delves into two significant judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court's definitive ruling in Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund v. Neeklanth Realty Private Limited, 2025 INSC 1255 and the subsequent elucidatory judgment of the Kerala High Court in Offshore Infrastructures Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Kochi Refinery, 2025 KHC 1119 and to meticulously analyse their holdings, legal reasoning, and the resultant clarification of jurisdictional boundaries. These judgments collectively underscore the imperative of adhering to the precise statutory definitions and the limited role of appointing courts post-arbitrator appointment.

II. Issue in Hand: The Jurisdictional Conundrum of Section 29A Extensions