[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr. C. B. Ramkumar vs M/S. Himalaya Prime Assets Pvt Ltd on 12 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
WP No. 32333 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 32333 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. C. B. RAMKUMAR
S/O LATE I B MENON
AGED 60 YEARS
RESIDNG AT SY. NO. 79
KODIHALLI VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
HESARAGHATTA,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
2. MRS. LALITHA RAMKUMAR
W/O MR. C B RAMKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDNG AT SY. NO. 79
Digitally signed by
NAGARAJA B M KODHALLI VILLAGE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MADHURE HOBLI
KARNATAKA HESARAGHATTA
DODDABALAPUR TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DSITRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY K R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S. HIMALAYA PRIME ASSETS PVT LTD
( FORMERLY NIRAAMAYA
RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED )
( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS NIRAAMAYA RETREATS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
WP No. 32333 of 2025
HC-KAR
KOVALAM PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
SURYA SAMUDRA CHOWWARA THOTTAM
MULLUR PULINKUDI P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
KERALA 695521
AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
NO. 54, RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE 560 025
2. JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRSENTED BY ITS CEO
MR. SUDHAKAR GANDE
PREVIOUSLY
AND PRESENTLY MR. HARI VELUPILLAI
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
PRESTIGE SIGMA, 5TH FLOOR
NO.3, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
MAHATMA GANDHI RAOD
BANGALORE 560 001
ALSO AT
NO. 54, RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE 560 025
3. NATIVE RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
HAVING ADDRESS AT
SY. NO. 79, KODIHALLI VILLAGE
MADHURE HOBLI
HESARAGHATTA,
DODDABALLALPUR T ALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
R1 TO R3 ARE REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT
1959
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NEHA RAO., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. ADITHYA R. CHAKRAGIRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2
R3 SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
WP No. 32333 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DTD. 22.08.2025 PASSED IN COM.A.A.NO.
317/2025 BY THE LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE
LXXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU TO CONSIDER THE
APPLICATION ON MERIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of
the Commercial Court on an application filed under Section
29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short
'the 1996 Act'), wherein the application filed under Section
29A seeking extension of time is declined on the premise
that the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court under
Section 11.
2. Heard the petitioners' counsel and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
HC-KAR
3. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Jagdeep Chowgule vs. Sheela Chowgule
and Others1, the controversy relating to the forum before
which an application seeking extension of time under
Section 29A of the 1996 Act is required to be filed, stands
conclusively settled.
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while examining the
scope and ambit of Section 29A and answering the
question formulated for consideration, has authoritatively
held that the application for extension of the mandate of
the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 29A has to be filed
before the "Court" as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has further clarified that this position would hold
good irrespective of the manner in which the Arbitrator
was appointed.
2026 SCC Online SC 124
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
HC-KAR
5. In other words, even in cases where the
Arbitrator has been appointed by the High Court or the
Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Section 11 of
the Act, or where the Arbitrator is appointed by mutual
consent of the parties in terms of the arbitration
agreement, the jurisdiction to entertain an application
seeking extension of time for completion of arbitral
proceedings under Section 29A would nevertheless vest in
the "Court" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the
Act.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court has thus made it
abundantly clear that the competence to consider an
application under Section 29A is not dependent upon the
authority which appointed the Arbitrator, but is
determined solely with reference to the statutory definition
of the term "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) of the 1996 Act.
By so holding, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has effectively
put to rest the divergent views expressed by various High
Courts on the issue and has given a quietus to the debate
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
HC-KAR
regarding the appropriate forum for seeking extension of
the arbitral mandate under Section 29A.
7. Therefore, in view of the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeep
Chowgule (supra), the legal position now stands settled
that an application under Section 29A of the 1996 Act for
extension of time to conclude arbitral proceedings must
necessarily be presented before the jurisdictional "Court"
as defined under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, irrespective of
whether the Arbitrator was appointed by the Court under
Section 11 or by agreement between the parties.
8. This Court in the light of authoritative decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which holds the field
and addresses the issue, the order passed by the
Commercial Court is clearly found to be contrary to the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned order dated 22.08.2025
passed in Com.A.A. No.317/2025 by the LXXXVI
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
(Commercial Court), Bengaluru, is hereby set
aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted to the
Commercial Court for fresh consideration in
accordance with law;
(iv) Since the parties are already
represented by their respective learned counsel,
they shall appear before the Commercial Court in
Com.A.A. No.317/2025 on 06.04.2026, without
awaiting any further notice or orders from this
Court;
(v) The Commercial Court shall consider
the matter afresh keeping in view the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and shall
expedite the proceedings and pass appropriate
orders within an outer limit of four weeks from
NC: 2026:KHC:14953
HC-KAR
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
