OC-23 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/503/2026 GAURAV WORLDWIDE TRADING PVT LTD VS WEST BENAGL SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (WBSIDCL) BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 13th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ratul Das, Adv. Mr. Shayak Mitra, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Bahal, Adv. Ms. Apple Mughali Jimo, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Abhishek Sikder, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) read with Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in place of Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal (Retired) whose mandate has stood terminated during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in an earlier petition under Section 11(5) being AP-COM/659/2024 vide order dated 27.08.2024 had appointed Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal (Retired) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Arbitrator had entered upon the 2 reference vide order 10.09.2024 passed by this court and the arbitral proceedings commenced. It is stated that the pleadings were completed by the 7th sitting held on 12.06.2025 and thereafter the proceedings continued on several dates. According to the petitioner, substantial progress had been made in the arbitral proceedings, which had reached the stage of recording evidence. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that during the 21st sitting held on 20.05.2026, the learned Arbitrator recorded that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent had expressed lack of faith in the Tribunal and advanced submissions which the learned Arbitrator considered inappropriate. In view thereof, the Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal (Retired) recused himself from the arbitral proceedings and terminated his mandate under Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 observing that the parties may approach this Court for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the said development, he has approached this Court under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator. He further states that since the arbitral proceedings have substantially progressed and have reached the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness, early appointment of a substitute Arbitrator is necessary to avoid further delay and prejudice to the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the present petition and further states that a substitute Arbitrator can be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. 3 This Court has perused the materials placed on record and has considered the submissions advanced by the parties. The records disclose that by an order dated 27.08.2024 passed in AP- COM/659/2024 this Court had appointed Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Mandal (Retired) as the sole Arbitrator holding that the appointment procedure contemplated under the arbitration agreement was unenforceable in law. It is also not in dispute that the learned Arbitrator had entered upon the reference and conducted the arbitral proceedings for a considerable period. From the proceedings recorded by the learned Arbitrator on 20.05.2026 it appears that the learned Arbitrator had withdrawn from the reference and consequently, his mandate stood terminated within the meaning of Section 15(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. In such circumstances, Section 15(2) of the Act mandates that a substitute Arbitrator shall be appointed. According to the rules applicable to the appointment of the Arbitrator, since the original Arbitrator was appointed by this Court in terms of Section 11 of the Act, this Court is competent to substitute the Arbitrator to continue the arbitral proceedings from the stage at which they presently stand. 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. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the requirements of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands fulfilled and the present application deserves to be allowed. 4 Accordingly, Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee (Retired), is appointed as the substitute Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the parties. The appointment of the learned sole Arbitrator shall be subject to compliance with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act. 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