Delhi High Court – Orders
M/S. Cl Educate Ltd vs Rohan Garg (Proprietor Of M/S. Phoenix … on 24 April, 2026
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(MISC.)(COMM.) 349/2026 & I.A. 11474/2026
M/S. CL EDUCATE LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Mathur, Mr. Gurrang
Saxena, Ms. Aditee Mathur & Mr.
Karan Singh, Advs.
versus
ROHAN GARG (PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PHOENIX ACADEMY)
.....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
ORDER
% 24.04.2026
1. This application/petition is filed under Section 29A (4) and (5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, „the Act‟) seeking further
extension of six months of the mandate of learned sole arbitrator.
2. The disputes arose pursuant to an Agreement dated 28.12.2020 for
grant ofa license to run a professional learning centre, executed between the
Petitioner, an education services provider and the Respondent, leading to
invocation of arbitration. The statutory period of twelve months under
Section 29A(1) of the Act expired on 20.10.2025 and thereafter the mandate
was extended by mutual consent till 20.04.2026. The mandate of the arbitral
tribunal is set to expire on 20.04.2026. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant on a specific query from the court
fairly contends that the amount involved is less than rupees two crores and
submits that despite the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagdeep
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 22:10:52
Chowgule Vs Sheela Chowgule and Others, 2026 INSC 92 since the
earlier applications under Section 29A of the Act were entertained by this
court the mandate be extended by this Court in view of Section 42 of the
Act.
4. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce the
following provisions where the original jurisdiction of this court is rupees
two crores and above.
5. Section 2 of the Amendment Act and Section 5(2) of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966 are reproduced below:
“The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 No. 23 of
s2015
2. In sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act,
1966, for the words „„rupees twenty lakhs‟‟, the words „„rupees
two crore‟‟ shall be substituted.”
“The Delhi High Court Act, 1966
5. Jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi.–
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, the High Court of Delhi shall also have in
respect of the said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction
in every suit the value of which exceeds [rupees two crore].”
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant lacks merit.
7. The Supreme Court after considering a reference arising from
conflicting views of different high courts as to which court can extend the
mandate of the arbitral tribunal and after analysing the provisions of the Act
including Section 42 held that since the high court has made the
appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act it shall not make it
a court of first instance for the purposes of Section 42 of the Act. The
decision of the high Court setting aside the decision of the commercial court
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 22:10:52
extending the mandate was set aside and the parties were granted liberty to
approach the commercial court for further extension if the need so arises.
Reliance was placed on the decision of the constitution bench in State of
Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., 2018 2 SCC
602. The following paragraphs are quoted below:
“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.
*** *** ***
26. It may be argued that since application under Section
11(6) for appointment is filed before High Court, all
successive applications, including the one under Section
29A(4) must be made to such High Court. We need not labour
on this issue as a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of
Jharkhand v. Hindustan Construction Co.37 affirming the
decision in Associated Contracts (Supra) has held that, solely
because a superior Court appoints the arbitrator, or issues
directions or has retained some control over the arbitrator, it
cannot be regarded as a „Court‟ of first instance for purposes
of Section 42. In Associated Contracts (Supra) this Court
opined:
“13. It will be noticed that whereas the earlier definition
contained in the 1940 Act spoke of any civil court, the
definition in the 1996 Act fixes “court” to be the Principal
Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction in a district or the High
Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Section 2(1)(e) further goes on to say that a court would not
include any civil court of a grade inferior to such Principal
Civil Court, or a Small Cause Court.
14. It will be noticed that the definition is an exhaustive one as
it uses the expression “means and includes”. It is settled law
that such definitions are meant to be exhaustive in nature–
see P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology [1995
Supp (2) SCC 348].
16. Similar is the position with regard to applications made
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 22:10:52
under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. In Rodemadan India
Ltd. v. International Trade Expo Centre Ltd. [(2006) 11 SCC
651], a Designated Judge of this Hon’ble Court following the
seven-Judge Bench in SBP and Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd. [(2005)
8 SCC 618], held that instead of the court, the power to
appoint arbitrators contained in Section 11 is conferred on the
Chief Justice or his delegate….
***
It is obvious that Section 11 applications are not to be moved
before the “court” as defined but before the Chief Justice
either of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, as the case
may be, or their delegates. This is despite the fact that the
Chief Justice or his delegate have now to decide judicially and
not administratively. Again, Section 42 would not apply to
applications made before the Chief Justice or his delegate for
the simple reason that the Chief Justice or his delegate is not
“court” as defined by Section 2(1)(e). The said view was
reiterated somewhat differently in Pandey & Co. Builders (P)
Ltd. v. State of Bihar [(2007) 1 SCC 467].”
27. In view of the above, we allow the appeals, set aside the
reference of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 88 of
2024 dated 07.08.2024 and the subsequent judgment and order
of the Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 88
of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 and restore the judgment of the
Commercial Court in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.
20/2023/A dated 02.01.2024. Parties are at liberty to move the
Commercial Court for further extension under Section 29A(5)
for exercising Court’s power under Section 29A(4). The Court
shall consider the application, hear the parties and pass
appropriate orders.”
8. The earlier applications allowed by this court under Section 29A of
the Act are of no avail for entertaining the present application under Section
29A of the Act. The extensions granted by this court were prior to the
decision of the Supreme Court when divergent views of different high courts
prevailed with regard to the entertainment of applications under Section 29A
of the Act.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 22:10:52
9. In view of the settled position of law, this court has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain an application under 29A (4) and (5) of the Act in
matters involving less than rupees two crores.
10. The application is dismissed.
11. Needless to say the applicant shall be at liberty to approach the
appropriate court with a prayer for extension of the mandate of the
arbitrator.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
APRIL 24, 2026
‘JK’
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/04/2026 at 22:10:52