916-ARP-147-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.147 OF 2026 M/s. Suu-Bag Engineering & Piping ] Systems Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, ] Mr.Shirish Anantwar, Having its address ] at 225, Devashree Garden, R. W. Sawant ] Road, Majiwada, Thane (W) – 400 601. ] ...Petitioner Versus M/s.Vaidya Spaces Pvt. Ltd. ] Having Address at : 501, Casa Maria, ] Gokhale Road, Dadar (West), ] Mumbai – 400 028. ] ...Respondent ==================================================== Mr.Arjun Amanchi a/w Mr.Vinay Kadam i/b. Mr.Amanchi Legal and Company:- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr.Ranjeev Carvalho a/w Mr.Samarth Chowdhary and Mr.Chaitanya Sharma i/b. M/s.Ashwinikumar & Company:- Advocates for Respondent. ==================================================== CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner / Plaintiff and learned Advocate for Respondent / Defendant. 2. There is appointment of learned Advocate Shri.Shanay Shah as a sole Arbitrator as per the order dated 2nd September 2024 passed by Satish Sangar 1/5 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.09.21 11:14:17 +0530 916-ARP-147-2026.doc this Court in Writ Petition No.2897 of 2024. This was the Petition filed by the Defendant. There is Commercial Suit for recovery of money filed by the Petitioner before the Commercial Court at Thane. 3. The mandate for Arbitral Award has expired on 20th May 2026 and that is why, the present Petition for extension of the mandate by minimum period of 9 months. There is further prayer for substituting the learned sole Arbitrator with a new Arbitrator. 4. So far as expiry of mandate, there is no dispute. Even learned Advocate for Respondent is consenting for extension of the mandate. There is no dispute about the stage of Arbitration proceedings. It is at the stage of continuing the cross-examination of the witness for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the only witness going to be examined and on the basis of instructions, it is submitted, that the Defendant is going to examine only one witness. 5. The last meeting was conducted on 20th December 2025 and it was adjourned to 30th January 2026. On 30th January 2026, no meeting was conducted on account of some difficulty on the part of the Petitioner. But it is undisputed fact that after 30th January 2026, no date is given by the learned Arbitrator for holding further hearing. 6. It is the contention of learned Advocate for the Petitioner that Satish Sangar 2/5 916-ARP-147-2026.doc being a Commercial Suit for recovery of money, his client is interested in expeditious disposal of the Arbitration proceeding and according to him, they have made several requests to the learned Arbitrator to fix up a date. But, for some reason or other, no further dates are given after 30th January 2026. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has invited my attention to the Whats-App communication annexed on Page Nos.54 and 55. 7. It is not in dispute that after 30th January 2026, no date is fixed by learned Arbitrator. However, according to learned Advocate for the Respondent, there is no intentional delay on the part of learned Arbitrator who is an practicing Advocate of this Court and he invited my attention to the minutes of the meeting from 19th September 2024 upto 20th December 2025. 8. Even though, it is true that there is some time gap in conduct of the meeting, the minutes shows that the issues are framed, admission and denial is over and the Plaintiff’s witness is under cross- examination. It may be true that there may be some practical difficulties for the learned Arbitrator to fix up the dates for further hearing. It is legitimate expectation of the Petitioner/Plaintiff to have an expeditious disposal of the Arbitration proceedings considering it Satish Sangar 3/5 916-ARP-147-2026.doc has arisen out of Commercial Suit for recovery of money. But, I am not inclined to substitute the Arbitrator as I do not find case is made out. The interest of the Petitioner can be protected by issuing certain directions. Substitution is not justified because even if the present Arbitrator is substituted, a new Arbitrator will have to be appointed and even he may take some time to apprise himself about the dispute and it may consume time for the new Arbitrator to start with the fresh hearing. So, this Court feels that certain directions can be issued for expeditious disposal of the Arbitration proceedings. 9. Considering the stage of the proceeding, this Court feels that extension for 6 months can be granted. In view of that, following order is passed:- -: O R D E R :- (I) The mandate for completing the Arbitration proceedings is extended by a period of 6 months from today . (II) It is expected from the learned Arbitrator to fix the dates for further hearing as early as possible and it is expected that at least, there should be some communication from the side of learned Arbitrator if the parties have sought for fixing of date. (III) Both the counsels have agreed to extend cooperation to the learned Arbitrator. Satish Sangar 4/5 916-ARP-147-2026.doc (IV) Even the learned Arbitrator is at liberty to request the Court for his discharge, if he thinks otherwise. (V) It is expected that the learned Arbitrator will conduct a meeting at least once in every month. It does not mean that he is prohibited from conducting more than one meeting in a month. 10. The Petition is disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Satish Sangar 5/5