OCD-21 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/807/2026 Young Bengal Cooperative Labour Contract Society Limited VS Union of India BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Shamba Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Diptomoy Talukder, Adv. Mr. T. Talukder, Adv. Mr. D. Ghosh, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Siddhartha Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Srikumar Chakraborty, Adv. …for the respondent UOI The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of the learned sole Arbitrator and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in place of Mr. Anuj Singh, Advocate (your Lordship then was), who has been elevated to the Bench. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by filing AP-COM/957/2025 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. This Court vide order dated 18th December, 2025 had 2 appointed Mr. Anuj Singh, learned Advocate(your Lordship then was) as the sole Arbitrator subject to his compliance with Section 12 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further states that subsequent to the appointment of the learned sole Arbitrator, the circumstances have changed and the learned sole Arbitrator has been elevated as a Judge of this Court, thus necessitating his substitution. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since his elevation, his continuance as an Arbitrator has become legally impermissible and, consequently, he has become de jure unable to perform his functions as an Arbitrator and that his mandate is, therefore, liable to be terminated within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the said contention. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the parties and has perused the materials placed on record. The appointment of the learned sole Arbitrator as a Judge of this Court is a subsequent event which has occurred after his appointment as an Arbitrator. Upon assuming judicial office, his continuance as an Arbitrator is no longer legally permissible. The inability is, therefore a legal inability to discharge his functions as an Arbitrator and falls within the scope of Section 14(1)(a) of Act. This Court accordingly declares the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh as the sole Arbitrator to be terminated. Since the original Arbitrator was appointed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, the substitute 3 Arbitrator is also required to be appointed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh as Arbitrator is terminated. In substitution thereof, Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate (Mobile No. 8420473075) is appointed as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The arbitral proceedings are at a nascent stage and the Statement of Claim has not yet been filed. The learned substituted Arbitrator shall assume charge of the arbitral proceedings and continue the proceedings from the stage at which the mandate of the erstwhile Arbitrator stands terminated in accordance with Section 15(3) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after making the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties. 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