OCD-12 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/86/2026 MS ZILLION INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 4th February, 2026. Appearance Mr. Soumen Das, Adv. Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv. ...for the petitioner Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Arnab Roy, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present application 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. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 29.01.2026 in Jagdeep Chowgule Vs Sheela Chowgule & Ors., arising out of SLP (C) NO (S). 10944-10945 of 2025, this Court lacks both territorial jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and that the competent Court is the Commercial Court at Rajarhat. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially he had filed an application under Section 29A of the Act before the Commercial Court at Rajarhat, which was disposed of in view of the earlier 2 pronouncement of this Court, pursuant to which Section 29A applications were being entertained by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court designating the Commercial Court at Rajarhat as the Court under Section as the 2(1)(e) of the Act, the present petition is required to be filed before the said Commercial Court at Rajarhat. In view of the said, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to move an appropriate application before the Commercial Court at Rajarhat, so that application under Section 29A can be entertained in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondent agrees with the said submissions and states that the relevant Court in terms of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, would be the Commercial Court at Rajarhat. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional Court in accordance with law. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) S. Mandi