As per case facts, a family dispute led to arbitration. An application for extension of the arbitral tribunal's mandate was filed before the Commercial Court. Separately, an arbitrator was appointed ... by the High Court under Section 11. The Commercial Court granted the extension, which was challenged by a Respondent, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the High Court's involvement in arbitrator appointment. A Single Judge referred the jurisdictional question to a Division Bench, which held that if the High Court appointed the arbitrator, the extension application should go to the High Court. This led to the Commercial Court's order being quashed. The question arose whether an application for extending the arbitral tribunal's mandate under Section 29A lies with the High Court or the Civil Court, regardless of who appointed the arbitrator. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the "Court" for Section 29A is the "Court" defined in Section 2(1)(e) (Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or High Court with ordinary original civil jurisdiction). It emphasized that the High Court's role in appointing arbitrators under Section 11 is limited and exhausted upon appointment, and does not grant supervisory control for Section 29A matters. Therefore, the Commercial Court has the jurisdiction.