- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE 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 KODHALLI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI 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 R Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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. 1 2026 SCC Online SC 124 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14953 WP No. 32333 of 2025 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17