Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22977 (CAL)

BHARAT BIJLEE LIMITED v. DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION

AP-COM/367/2026 · 2026-06-10

Gaurang Kanth

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

OCD-7 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/367/2026 BHARAT BIJLEE LIMITED VS DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 10th June, 2026. Appearance Ms. Moyuri Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Suvradal Chowdhury, Adv. Ms. Rupsa Ganguli, Adv. ...for the petitioner Mr. Subir Pal, Adv. ...for the DVC The Court:- The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and publication of the arbitral award. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2020 appointed the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 07.11.2021. Thereafter, with the consent of the parties the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended by six months till 31.08. 2023. Subsequently, this Court vide orders dated 23.08.2023 and 03.09.2024 and 25.11.2025 and 19th January, 2026 extended the mandate 2 of the Arbitral Tribunal by periods of one year, eight months, two months and four months respectively. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned sole Arbitrator had undergone heart surgery and as such, there has been a delay in the publication of the award. The said submission is not controverted by the learned Counsel for the respondent. It is further submitted that he has no objection to the extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the materials places on record, this Court is conscious of the fact that the learned sole Arbitrator had undergone heart surgery and therefore, there has been some delay in publication of the arbitral award. This Court is satisfied that the delay in conducting the arbitral proceedings is neither undue, nor unwarranted, nor attributable to any want of diligence or intentional default on the part of the learned sole Arbitrator. Having regard to the advance stage of the arbitral proceedings and in the interest of justice, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is extended for a further period of three months from today. Learned sole arbitrator is requested to make all endeavours to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the arbitral award within the extended time period. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) gb.