Kalyan Silks Trichur Private Limited vs Dlf Home Developers Limited
2026 Latest Caselaw 1456 Ker

Kerala High Court

Kalyan Silks Trichur Private Limited vs Dlf Home Developers Limited on 11 February, 2026

                                                      2026:KER:12636
O.P.(ATE)No.33 of 2024
                                    1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU

   WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947

                         OP(ATE) NO. 33 OF 2024

                  AR NO.16 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
                              DATED 29.11.2021

PETITIONER/CLAIMANT:
           KALYAN SILKS TRICHUR PRIVATE LIMITED
           HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 4/621/2,
           KURIACHIRA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680006,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
           T.P SEETHARAMAN.
             BY ADVS.SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
                     SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
                     SRI.ADITYA VENUGOPALAN
                     SRI.MAHESH CHANDRAN
                     SMT.SARANYA BABU
                     SMT.ANGITA T. MENON
                     SRI.ABHISHEK S.
                     SMT.TANYA KADEEJA

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
           DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,
           9TH FLOOR, DLF CENTRE, SANSAD MARG,
           NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.
             BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
                     SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
                     SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
                     SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
                     SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
                     SRI.RAJA KANNAN
                     SMT.POOJA MENON

      THIS OP(ARBITRATION TIME EXTENSION) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                        2026:KER:12636
O.P.(ATE)No.33 of 2024
                                    2


                             S.MANU, J.
           --------------------------------------------------
                       O.P.(ATE)No.33 of 2024
            -------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 11th day of February, 2026

                             JUDGMENT

Applicant in A.R.No.16/2020 has filed this petition under

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2016 to

substitute the Arbitrator and to extend the time for completion

of the arbitral proceedings arising from A.R.No.16/2020.

2. While this petition was pending, a Division Bench of

this Court considered a reference made by a learned Single

Judge with the intention to resolve conflicting views regarding

the court competent to consider applications under Section 29A

and to pass orders thereunder.

3. The Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures

Limited v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [2025 SCC OnLine

Ker 10899] answered the reference holding that in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer

(NH) PWD (Roads) v. BSC & C and C JV [2024 SCC OnLine 2026:KER:12636

SC 1801], the power under Section 29A vests in the court as

defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 which is the Principal Civil Court in a district and includes

the High Court, provided the High Court has ordinary original

civil jurisdiction.

4. Thus, the resultant position emerging from the order

of the Division Bench in the reference is that this Court, not

conferred with ordinary original civil jurisdiction, cannot

entertain applications under Section 29A and pass orders.

5. Faced with the circumstances mentioned in the

previous paragraphs, the learned counsel for the petitioner

endeavored to critically analyse the order passed by the Division

Bench and submitted that the same would require

reconsideration by a larger bench. He, as well as the learned

counsel for the respondent, was therefore heard at length.

Relying on various reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as well as of different High Courts, the learned counsel for

the petitioner canvassed that the view adopted by the Division 2026:KER:12636

Bench is not correct in law and would lead to incongruity in the

judicial hierarchy for the reason that Arbitrators nominated by

the High Court would be substituted by the District Courts. He

submitted that the view of another Division Bench of this Court

in Lots Shipping Company Limited v. Cochin Port Trust

[2020 SCC OnLine Ker 21443] was the correct view wherein the

Division Bench gave emphasis to the hierarchical difficulties and

adopted a construction that obviated the same. The learned

counsel for the respondent per contra supported the order

passed by the Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures

Limited (supra) and contended that in the light of the principles

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chief Engineer

(NH) PWD (Roads)(supra), the view adopted by a Division

Bench of this Court in Lots Shipping Company Limited

(supra) cannot be considered as good law anymore. She

therefore contended that there is no reason to make any

reference doubting the correctness of the conclusions of the

Division Bench in Offshore Infrastructures Limited (supra).

2026:KER:12636

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently addressed

the very same issue in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela

Chowgule and Others [2026 SCC OnLine SC 124]. The Apex

Court held as under in the said judgment:-

"11. As we are concerned with the jurisdiction and powers of the 'Court' under Section 29A, the said provision as well as the definition of 'Court' in Section 2(1)(e) are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.

"Sec. 29A. Time limit for arbitral award.--(1) The award shall be made within a period of twelve months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference.

Explanation.--For the purpose of this sub-section, an arbitral tribunal shall be deemed to have entered upon the reference on the date on which the arbitrator or all the arbitrators, as the case may be, have received notice, in writing, of their appointment.

(2) If the award is made within a period of six months from the date the arbitral tribunal enters upon the reference, the arbitral tribunal shall be entitled to receive such amount of additional fees as the parties may agree.

(3) The parties may, by consent, extend the period specified in sub-section (1) for making award for a further period not exceeding six months. (4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrator(s) shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period:

2026:KER:12636

Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrator(s) by not exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay.

(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-

section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court.

(6) While extending the period referred to in sub- section (4), it shall be open to the Court to substitute one or all of the arbitrators and if one or all of the arbitrators are substituted, the arbitral proceedings shall continue from the stage already reached and on the basis of the evidence and material already on record, and the arbitrator(s) appointed under this section shall be deemed to have received the said evidence and material. (7) In the event of arbitrator(s) being appointed under this section, the arbitral tribunal thus reconstituted shall be deemed to be in continuation of the previously appointed arbitral tribunal. (8) It shall be open to the Court to impose actual or exemplary costs upon any of the parties under this section.

(9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party. Sec. 2. Definitions.--(1) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires,--

(e) "Court" means-- (i) in the case of an arbitration other than international commercial arbitration, the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of 2026:KER:12636

its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes;

(ii) in the case of international commercial arbitration, the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, and in other cases, a High Court having jurisdiction to hear appeals from decrees of courts subordinate to that High Court;"

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court analysed true text and

context of Section 29A and concluded as under:-

"20. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the conclusion on the ground that there will be hierarchical difficulties, conflict of power or jurisdictional anomaly if a Civil Court entertains application under Section 29A for extension of time of an arbitral tribunal if the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act has appointed the arbitrator(s) is untenable. This approach is hereby rejected."

8. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pondered over

the interpretation of the expression "court" in Section 2(1)(e)

and followed the judgment in Chief Engineer (NH) PWD

(Roads) (supra).

2026:KER:12636

9. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Jagdeep Chowgule (supra), the contention canvassed

by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted

though his endeavor and fervor were appreciable. Following the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this O.P.(ATE) is

rejected as not maintainable. Nevertheless, it will be open to the

petitioner to file a suitable application before the Principal Civil

Court having jurisdiction for the same reliefs.

O.P.(ATE) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

S.MANU JUDGE skj 2026:KER:12636

APPENDIX OF OP(ATE) NO. 33 OF 2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 12.02.2022 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 14.03.2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 16.03.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 03.09.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 16.09.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 01.10.2022 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE NUMBERED AS IA 5 OF 2022 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF DEFENSE DATED 30.09.2022 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.11.2022 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDURAL ORDER DATED 28.02.2024