OD-2 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORIGINAL SIDE AP/209/2025 RAJ KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS VS LAUREL INVESTMENTS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 14th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata, Adv. Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar, Adv. …for the petitioners Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Gupta, Adv. Mr. Piyush Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajsekhar Bal Bakshi, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for completion of the arbitral proceedings and publication of the arbitral award. This Court, by order dated 19.01.2023, appointed a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Upon expiry of the initial mandate, the parties, by mutual consent, extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for a further period of six months. Thereafter, this Court, by order dated 19.03.2025, extended the mandate of the Arbitrator by an additional period of eight months. The mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal expired on 08.12.2025. It is noted that the Arbitral Tribunal has 2 conducted more than 27 sittings, and the matter is presently at the stage of final arguments. The respondent has filed its affidavit-in-opposition, stating, inter alia, that it has no objection to extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, but seeks substitution of the learned Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it has filed AP/34/2026 under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, seeking substitution of the Arbitrator. It is submitted that the learned Arbitrator has been charging fees not in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act, but at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per hearing, to be shared equally by the parties. It is further submitted that the respondent is unable to bear such cost, and on this ground seeks substitution of the learned Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has no objection to the substitution of the learned Arbitrator. In view of the above, and with the consent of the parties, Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 9831095116), is appointed as the learned Sole Arbitrator, in substitution of Hon’ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay (Retired), to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The substituted Arbitrator shall assume charge of the arbitral proceedings and continue the same from the stage at which they stood immediately prior to such substitution. The appointment of the learned Sole Arbitrator shall be subject to compliance with Section 12(5) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix his remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Act. 3 Having regard to the advanced stage of the arbitral proceedings, and in the interest of justice, the mandate of the Tribunal is hereby extended for a further period of nine months from date, for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and publication of the arbitral award. The learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the arbitral award within the said extended period of nine months. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned Sole Arbitrator for necessary action. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar