ORDER OD - 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE AP/100/2026 PARAMSUKH NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED VS SMT. SWAPNA ROY AND ORS BEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date: July 07, 2026. Appearance:- Mr. Falguni Bandyopadhyay, Adv. Ms. Sreetama Neogi, Adv. Ms. Riya Ballav, Adv. Mr. Aindrik Chatterjee, Adv. …for petitioner. Ms. Manisha Das, Adv. Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv. …for respondent No.4. 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 5thJanuary, 2023 had appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 19th July, 2023. With the consent of the parties, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal was further extended till 18.01.2025. Vide order dated 02.02.2024, the learned arbitrator directed the petitioner to adequately stamp the agreement of sale dated 23rd June, 1994. Such order was communicated vide letter dated 22nd February, 2024. In the said letter the learned arbitrator had further directed the petitioner to pay the requisite 2 stamp duty and to obtain an endorsement from the Collector and thereafter return the document to the learned arbitrator. Vide order dated 09.12.2024, the collector determined the stamp duty payable and the petitioner deposited the same on 25th March, 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that thereafter the petitioner had contacted the learned arbitrator but no proceedings were initiated. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has not been diligent in prosecuting the arbitral proceedings. She states that this present petition has been filed after considerable delay since the impounded document had been duly stamped in July 2025 and thereafter, the petitioner did not take any affirmative steps to get the matter heard before the learned arbitrator. She states that such conduct on the part of the petitioner renders the continuation of the arbitral proceedings redundant. Learned counsel for the petitioner controverts the said submissions and reiterated that upon receipt of the impounded document, the petitioner had deposited the charges as indicated by the collector and thereafter addressed communications to the learned arbitrator on 29th July, 2025 and 9th December, 2025 requesting initiation of the arbitral proceedings. It is submitted that the arbitral tribunal ultimately held a meeting on 22nd April, 2026, when the parties were directed to obtain extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal from this Court. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the present application has been filed belatedly. The impounded documents were available to the petitioner since July, 2025 and though the 3 petitioner had contacted the arbitrator but he did not take any steps in furtherance of the arbitral proceedings. This Court is satisfied that there has been no undue or unwarranted delay on part of the learned sole arbitrator in conducting the arbitral proceedings. 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 further period of six months from today for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and publication of the arbitral award. The learned sole arbitrator is requested to make all reasonable endeavours to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the arbitral award within the extended time period. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R. D. Barua