Authority: High Court of Gujarat

Order Date: 02 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Abhishek Suresh Mehta & Ors. (Petitioners) versus M/s Parth Developers & Ors. (Respondents).
  • Petitions were filed under Section 29A(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 together with Rule 34.6 of the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat Rules, 2021, seeking successive six‑month extensions of the sole arbitrator’s mandate in Arbitration Case No. 6 of 2022.
  • Chronology of extensions sought and granted:
  • Initial twelve‑month period ended 20 June 2022; parties consented to a six‑month extension up to 20 December 2022.
  • Further extensions were ordered by this Court: up to 20 June 2023, up to 20 December 2023, up to 20 June 2024, up to 20 December 2024, and up to 20 June 2025, based on applications filed as Arbitration Petition Nos. 190 of 2023, 116 of 2024, 39 of 2025, etc.
  • By the date of the present petitions, the arbitral award remained unpronounced and the arbitrator indicated that the award would not be ready before 20 June 2025.
  • Respondents raised a preliminary objection, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (2026 INSC 92), arguing that jurisdiction to extend the mandate under Section 29A(4) resides only with the civil court competent to entertain a Section 34 challenge, not with the High Court under Rule 34.6.
  • Petitioners, through Senior Advocate Mr. Deven Parikh, contended that the parties had expressly agreed to be governed by the Arbitration Centre Rules, 2021, which confer on the High Court the power to extend the mandate, and that earlier extensions had been granted without objection.
  • The Court examined the statutory scheme of Section 29A, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “Court” under Section 2(1)(e), and the hierarchy of judicial authority. It concluded that Rule 34.6, framed before the Apex Court’s clarification, must yield to the statutory interpretation that only the civil court (as defined in Section 2(1)(e)) may entertain extensions beyond the statutory twelve‑month period plus one consensual six‑month extension.
  • The Court further held that party autonomy cannot override mandatory statutory provisions, and institutional rules cannot supersede the Arbitration Act.

Final Outcome

  • The preliminary objection raised by the respondents was upheld; the petitions seeking further extension of the arbitrator’s mandate are dismissed as not maintainable.
  • The parties are directed to approach the appropriate civil court under Section 29A(4) for any further extension.
  • The related amendment application (Civil Application No. 1 of 2025) is declared infructuous and disposed of.
  • Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 773 of 2026, filed for review of earlier orders, is rejected on the ground that a subsequent Supreme Court decision cannot constitute a ground for review of judgments rendered before that decision.
  • The Court directed the Registry to place a copy of this judgment before the Committee of the Arbitration Centre (Domestic and International), High Court of Gujarat, for possible amendment of Rule 34.6 to align with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Topics: Arbitration Extension, Judicial Jurisdiction, Supreme Court Precedent