OC- 3 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/471/2026 M/S. ZAMIL STEEL BUILDINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS M/S. JKS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 7th September, 2026. Appearance:- Mr. Mrinal Beri, Adv. …for petitioner. Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Subhajit Seth, Adv. …for respondent. The Court: - Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent is taken on record. 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. By order dated 29th July, 2022, this Court had appointed a learned Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The Respondent having declined to consent to an extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioner approached this Court, and by order dated 02.09.2024, the mandate was extended for a period of six months. Thereafter, the Petitioner again approached this Court seeking further extension, and by order dated 3rd December, 2025, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended for a further period of six months. The present petition seeks a further extension in continuation thereof. 2 The present petition is contested by the Respondent. It is contended that since the present petition has been filed under Section 29A(4), this Court is obligated to substitute the learned Arbitrator in terms of Section 29A(6) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondent places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria v. Bharat Textiles and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2754, and submits that upon the filing of any petition under Section 29A, substitution of the arbitrator is mandated. It is further contended that the learned Arbitrator has been remiss in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings, having held only six sittings over a period of one year, and that such delay independently warrants substitution. It is additionally contended that the learned Arbitrator sought fees in excess of what is permissible under the Fourth Schedule to the Act, which too warrants substitution. This Court has heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and proceeds to deal with each of the aforesaid contentions in turn. On mandatory substitution, the Respondent's reliance on Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (supra) proceeds on a misreading of the said judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 195, has since clarified the position in Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (Supra) and held that substitution of an arbitrator is not an inevitable or mandatory consequence in every petition seeking extension of the mandate of an Arbitral Tribunal. It was further clarified that no inference could be drawn from Mohan Lal Fatehpuria (supra) that the mandate of an arbitrator stands terminated under Section 29A(4) in every such case, or that 3 substitution is required as a matter of course. In view of this clarification, the contention that the learned Arbitrator must be substituted merely because the present petition has been filed under Section 29A is rejected. On delay in the proceedings, upon examination of the record, this Court finds no delay attributable to the learned Sole Arbitrator in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. On the contrary, the learned Arbitrator appears to have conducted the proceedings with due diligence. This contention, too, is accordingly rejected. On fees beyond the Fourth Schedule the Respondent has relied upon the arbitrator's orders dated 24th April, 2026 and 19th May, 2026 to contend that the learned Arbitrator sought remuneration in excess of the Fourth Schedule. On a perusal of the said orders, this Court finds that the learned Arbitrator did not, in fact, seek or claim any fees beyond what is permissible under the Fourth Schedule; the learned Arbitrator had merely sought the Respondent's opinion as to whether any further payment could be considered. A request for the parties' opinion on the question of remuneration does not amount to a demand for fees beyond the permissible limit. This contention, too, is accordingly rejected. Having regard to the above and considering that the arbitral proceedings are at an advanced stage, this Court is satisfied that the interest of justice would not be served by declining the extension sought. The petition is accordingly allowed, and the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal stands extended. In view of the same, the mandate of the learned arbitrator is extended further for a period of six months from today. 4 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 directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R. D. Barua