OCD-16 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/691/2026 M/S. ROYAL INFRACONSTRU LIMITED VS EASTERN RAILWAY BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 25th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly, Adv. Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Adv. .for the petitioner Ms. Aparna Banerjee, Adv. ..for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Sections 14(1)(a) read with 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh, Co-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. It is the case of the petitioner that this Court vide order dated 12th April, 2023 in AP/616/2022 had constituted an Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate and Mr. Anuj Singh, Advocate (your Lordship then was) as the Co-Arbitrators. 2 The Tribunal entered upon the reference. Meetings were held by the Tribunal and disclosures were made by the learned Arbitrators in terms of Section 12 of the Act. The pleadings were thereafter completed and the evidence of the petitioner’s witness including cross-examination was concluded on 3rd April, 2025. The Tribunal had sought extension under Section 29A and the same was granted by this Court vide order dated 31st July, 2026 for a period of eight months making the mandate operative till 31st March, 2027. The present application has been occasioned by a subsequent event. Mr. Anuj Singh, who was practising as an Advocate when he was appointed as a Co-Arbitrator has since been elevated as an Additional Judge of this Court and assumed office with effect from 8th August, 2026. 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 within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. It is further submitted that the arbitral proceedings are at an advanced stage. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not oppose the present petition. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and has perused the materials on record. The appointment of Mr. Anuj Singh as an Additional Judge of this Court is a subsequent event which occurred after his appointment as Co- Arbitrator. Upon assuming judicial office, his inability to discharge his 3 functions as a Co-Arbitrator is a legal inability and not merely a circumstance of inconvenience or difficulty in participating in the arbitral proceedings. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh as Co-Arbitrator is liable to be terminated under Section 14(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh as Co-Arbitrator is terminated. In substitution thereof, Mr. Sabir Ahmed, Advocate (Mobile No. 9007434193) is appointed as a Co-Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator shall join the existing Arbitral Tribunal comprising Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court and Mr. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate as Co-Arbitrator. The Arbitral Tribunal shall proceed with the reference from the stage at which the proceedings stood immediately prior to the termination of the mandate of Mr. Anuj Singh (your Lordship then was). The proceedings already conducted shall not be reopened merely by reason of the substitution, subject to such directions as the reconstituted Tribunal may consider necessary in the interest of justice and in accordance with law. The reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal shall endeavour to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the award within the time specified by this Court. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal. 4 The learned substitute Co-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 Tribunal may fix the fees of the newly appointed co-arbitrator on the same terms as those applicable to the other members of the Tribunal. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the reconstituted Arbitral Tribunal for necessary action. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp.