Factual Background
In ongoing arbitral proceedings between Viva Highways Ltd (appellant) and MPRDC (respondent), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, relying on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (2025 INSC 1409), terminated the existing arbitrator’s mandate and directed the parties to propose a new arbitrator.
Viva Highways challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether, upon termination of the arbitrator’s mandate under Section 29A(4), the court is obligated to substitute the arbitrator under Section 29A(6) as a matter of course.
- Whether an application for extension of mandate under Section 29A(4) lay before the High Court, or before the Commercial Court.
Held
It was held that the High Court misinterpreted Mohan Lal Fatehpuria.
The Supreme Court clarified: “When this Court used the expression ‘obligates’, it only meant that a substitute Arbitrator would be appointed if the situation so warranted. It is not an inference which would necessarily follow the mandate of the Arbitrator standing terminated under Section 29A(4).”
A coordinate Bench in C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera (2026 INSC 112) correctly explained that Mohan Lal Fatehpuria does not mandate inevitable substitution; substitution occurred there because facts warranted it.
Following Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule & Ors. (2026 INSC 92), it was held that “Section 11 of the Arbitration Act will have no bearing on the working of the provisions of Chapter 5 and 6, wherein Section 29A is located.” Hence, “The application for extension of time under Section 29A(4) … did not lie before the High Court”.
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s order dated 02.12.2025. The application disposed of by the Commercial Court, Bhopal in MJC (AV) No. 30/2025 stood revived and the Commercial Court was directed to decide the Section 29A application expeditiously.
AMLEGALS Remarks
This decision reaffirms that Courts should not treat termination of the mandate under Section 29A(4) as automatically triggering substitution under Section 29A(6); they must assess whether the facts warrant substitution.
The Parties should file Section 29A(4) extension applications before the competent Commercial Court rather than under Section 11 or directly in the High Court, unless the applicable statute or forum allocation in that jurisdiction provides otherwise.
The High Courts should not short-circuit the Section 29A framework by terminating mandates and directing fresh appointments without first determining from the record whether an extension or substitution is warranted.
Case Brief: Viva Highways Ltd v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 06 February 2026
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 38327/2025)
