Delhi High Court interprets the meaning of ‘Court’ under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act to mean court that has the power to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11
DDA (“Petitioner”) filed a petition under Section 29A (“Petition”) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) before the Delhi High Court (“Court”) to extend the mandate of the arbitrator. M/s Tara Chand Construction Co. (“Respondent”) objected to the maintainability of the said Petition on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as the claim value was less than INR 20 million.
The Petitioner argued that it is a fit case for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator as the final arguments had nearly concluded. On the point of maintainability of the Petition, the Petitioner argued that the term ‘Court’, as used in Section 29A, would mean the High Court in the case of domestic arbitration, which also has exclusive power to appoint the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, and not the District Court as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act.
The Bar Council of India does not permit solicitation of work and advertising by legal practitioners and advocates. By accessing the Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. website (our website), the user acknowledges that:
The user wishes to gain more information about us for his/her information and use. He/She also acknowledges that there has been no attempt by us to advertise or solicit work.
Any information obtained or downloaded by the user from our website does not lead to the creation of the client – attorney relationship between the Firm and the user.
None of the information contained in our website amounts to any form of legal opinion or legal advice.
All information contained in our website is the intellectual property of the Firm.