Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31748 (CAL)

VIOM INFRA VENTURES LTD. ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS QUIPPO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) v. A2Z INFRASERVICES LTD. AND ANR.

AP-COM/561/2026 · 2026-07-31

Gaurang Kanth

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

OCD-5 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/561/2026 VIOM INFRA VENTURES LTD. ( PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS QUIPPO INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.) VS A2Z INFRASERVICES LTD. AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 31st July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Arjun Syal, Adv. Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv. Mr. Sumit Biswas, Adv. Ms. Rajashree Bhowmick, Adv. …for the petitioner Ms. Neelina Chatterjee, Adv. Ms. Hasnuhana Chakraborty, Adv. …for the respondent 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 21.01.2021 had appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 12.03.2022. With the consent of the parties, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was 2 extended till 12.09.2023. This Court vide orders dated 08.03.2024 and 14.07.2025 extended the mandate by four months and one year respectively. In the meanwhile, through auction process conducted by the Official Liquidator, the petitioner company was sold and the new management has taken over. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the matter is at the stage of recording of respondent’s evidence. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that she does not have any 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 learned sole Arbitrator in conducting the proceedings. Having regard to the advanced stage of the proceedings and in the interest of justice, the mandate of the learned sole Arbitrator is extended further for a period of one year from today. 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 aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar