Bombay High Court
DR YOGESH BALIRAM VARGANTWARversusVIGNAHARTA HEALTH VISIONARIES PRIVATE LTD THR ITS DIRECTOR DR SHOED HASMI
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ARUN R PEDNEKER
Holding
The application is withdrawn, and the applicant is permitted to approach the District Court for extension of the arbitrator's mandate.
Summary
The applicant, Dr. Yogesh Baliram Vargantwar, filed an arbitration application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an extension of the arbitrator's mandate. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (2026 LiveLaw SC 89) held that such extensions may be granted by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. Relying on that precedent, the applicant’s counsel requested permission to withdraw the High Court application and instead approach the District Court for the extension. The respondent’s counsel did not object to the extension itself and agreed to appear before the District Court, but objected to a separate prayer (prayer no.2). The High Court, noting the parties’ concurrence on the main relief, disposed of the application as withdrawn, granting the applicant liberty to file the appropriate application before the District Court, and made no order on prayer no.2.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain an application for extension of an arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the extension of the arbitrator's mandate should be sought before the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as per Supreme Court precedent.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Extension of arbitrator's mandate
- Section 29A
- Jurisdiction
- High Court
- District Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:12442
918-AA-46-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 46 OF 2025
Dr Yogesh Baliram Vargantwar
VERSUS
Vignaharta Health Visionaries Private Ltd Thr Its Director Dr Shoed
Hasmi
...
Mr. L. D. Vakil, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. N. S. Muthiyan, Advocate for Respondents
***
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J
DATE : MARCH 24, 2026
PC :
1. The present application is filed under Section 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of
the Arbitrator.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jagdeep Chowgule vs.
Sheela Chowgule and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 89 has observed that
mandate of the Arbitrator can be extended by the Principal Civil Court
of original jurisdiction. Considering the same, learned Counsel for the
Applicant seeks leave to withdraw the present Application and move the
appropriate application before the District Court for extension of
mandate.
3. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also submits that
PAGE 1 OF 2
918-AA-46-2025.odt
he has no objection for extension of mandate and that he would appear
before the District Court along with Applicant. As regards prayer no.2 is
concerned, Respondent has objection for the same.
4. In view of this, present Application is disposed of as
withdrawn with liberty to Applicant to approach the District Court.
5. This Court has no stated anything with regard to prayer
no.2.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
usm
PAGE 2 OF 2
Checking your session…