Bombay High Court

VIIKING BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., REP. THR. ITS AUT. SIGN., AJINKYA SHETYEversusJOSEPH SILVA

Disposal: Withdrawn
Bench: VALMIKI MENEZES

Holding

Section 29A applications must be filed before the court with original civil jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate Commercial Court, and not before the High Court.

Summary

The applicant, ViiKing Beverages Pvt. Ltd., filed an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking extension of an arbitrator's mandate. The Supreme Court, in Jagdeep Chowgule v. Sheela Chowgule (2026 SCC OnLine SC 124), held that such applications must be filed before the court with original civil jurisdiction, i.e., the appropriate Commercial Court, not the High Court. Relying on that precedent, the High Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Section 29A application. The applicant was allowed to withdraw the application with permission to re‑file it in the Commercial Court at Margao within a week. Consequently, the application was dismissed as withdrawn, with leave to re‑file in the proper forum.

Issues considered

Whether an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be filed before a High Court or must be filed before the court with original civil jurisdiction (Commercial Court).

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11, 29A
Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 29A
Jurisdiction
Commercial Arbitration
High Court
Withdrawal
Mandate of Arbitrator

Judgment

2026:BHC-GOA:311
                                             903 MCA 87 2025

                Sonam

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                          MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.87 OF 2025

           VIIKING BEVERAGES PVT. LTD., REP.
           THR. ITS AUT. SIGN., AJINKYA
           SHETYE                                                   ... APPLICANT
              Versus
           JOSEPH SILVA                                             ... RESPONDENT


           Mr. Shivan Desai with Ms. Riya Amonkar, Advocates for the Applicant.

           Ms. Seoula Vas (through V.C.), Advocate for the Respondent.


                                 CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
                                 DATED :- 17th February, 2026

           P.C.:


           1.      I had heard the matter on 01.12.2025 and had reserved for orders.
           In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdeep Chowgule V/s
           Sheela Chowgule and ors, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 124, has
           set aside the Judgment of this Court dated 07.08.2024 in Sheela
           Chowgule V/s Vijay Chowgule in Writ Petition No. 88 of 2024 and
           taken a view that the application under Section 29A would not lie
           before the High Court or before the Court which appointed an
           Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, but would lie to the
           Court with original civil jurisdiction, as defined under the Arbitration
           Act.



                                                 Page 1 of 3
                                              17th February, 2026
                                 903 MCA 87 2025


2.    Considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in Jagdeep
Chowgule (supra), this application would not lie before this Court. The
application under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act arises from an
Arbitral   Proceedings   where      the           value   of   the   claim   was
Rs.2,39,24,753/-. As submitted by the Appellant, the Arbitral
Proceedings are covered by the provisions of the Commercial Courts
Act and is a Commercial Arbitration. Considering this position, the
Court in which the application under Section 29A would have to be
filed for extension of the mandate of the Arbitrator, would have to be
the Commercial Court having territorial jurisdiction or based on
subject matter of the Arbitral Proceedings, as in this case, the
Commercial Court is at Margao, South Goa District, the Arbitrator
appointed by this Court and the Arbitral Proceedings also have their
bearing at Margao, South Goa


3.   In view of the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Jagdeep Chowgule (supra), the learned Advocate for the Applicant
seeks to withdraw the present application with leave to present the
same within a week from today before the appropriate Court.
Consequently, the application stands dismissed as withdrawn with
leave as prayed for.


4.   Considering that the application under Section 29A of the Act had
been filed in this Court prior to the expiry of the mandate, and in view
of the Judgment now passed by the Supreme Court that such an

                                    Page 2 of 3
                                 17th February, 2026
                                 903 MCA 87 2025


application shall be filed in the Court with the appropriate jurisdiction.
I deem it appropriate to permit the Applicant to withdraw the present
application with leave to file the same before the appropriate Court at
Margao, provided it is filed by 27.02.2026. The Commercial Court
shall consider the application as if filed prior to the expiry of the
mandate of the Arbitrator.



                                            VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                    Page 3 of 3
                                 17th February, 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…