OCD-7 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/504/2026 MERAJ YUSHA AND ANR VS HAMIDA KHATOON AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 10th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ishan Shah, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sanskriti Jain, Adv. Mr. Satyam Bhimsaria, Adv. …for the petitioners Mr. Ankan Rai, Adv. Mr. Yash Singhi, Adv. Ms. Ajeya Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Chaddha, Adv. Mr. Ayan Rai, Adv. Mr. Ratnesh Kr. Rai, Adv. Ms. Vipra Garg, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kejriwal, Adv. …for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. 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. 2 This Court vide order dated 22.12.2023 had constituted the arbitral tribunal for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. The pleadings in respect of the first reference were completed on 04.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner no.2 initiated second arbitration proceeding and the parties by mutual consent referred the second reference to the same arbitral tribunal. The pleadings in respect of the second reference were completed on 31.12.2024. The mandate of the arbitral tribunal qua the first reference was extended till 05.12.2025 and qua the second reference till 01.07.2026. Thereafter, the parties jointly initiated a third reference and, by mutual consent, appointed the same arbitral tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2026. The arbitral tribunal has issued direction for completion of pleadings therein. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the matter is complex and involve multiple overlapping references, he prays for extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal by a further period of one year. Learned Counsel for the respondents state that he has no objection to the extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal. Upon consideration of the submissions of both the parties and the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that there has been no undue or unwarranted delay on the part of the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings. Having regard to the fact that there are multiple references between the parties several applications are pending consideration and the proceedings overlap, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice warrants extension of the mandate of the learned Tribunal 3 qua the first and second references for a further period of one year from today. The Arbitral Tribunal is requested to make all reasonable endeavours to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the arbitral award within the extended time period. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar