Calcutta High Court
Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 22 May, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD 6
ORDER SHEET
AP-COM/408/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
VS
KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 22nd May, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Ankan Rai, Adv.
Mr. Ratnesh Kr. Rai, Adv.
Ms. Vipra Gang, Adv.
Ms. Devanshi Deora, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Kejriwal, Adv.
... for the petitioner
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Avishek Guha, Adv.
Mr. Subhajit Das, Adv.
Mr. Ankus Majumdar, Adv.
... for the respondents
The Court:
1. This is an application for extension of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator.
The learned Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. The first extension was
granted on August 13, 2024.
2. Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent strongly
opposes the prayer for extension on the ground that the conduct of the
petitioner should be taken into account. The petitioner was not diligent in
pursuing the proceedings. The prayer for extension should be rejected on
this ground. The petitioner did not participate before the learned Arbitrator
on various dates, left the fees of the secretarial staff pending and made
frivolous allegations against the learned Arbitrator with regard to this
jurisdiction. It is further submitted that mandate can be extended only
upon the Court satisfying itself that there are sufficient reasons to extend
the same. In the case in hand, such cause is absent.
3. Mr. Rai submits that the petitioner undertakes to pay off all the dues.
4. The pleadings are being considered to analyse whether ends of justice
demand extension of the mandate. Learned Arbitrator was appointed on
June 24, 2022. The learned Arbitrator submitted a declaration under
Section 12(1) on July 12, 2022. The proceedings commenced. The first
sitting of the arbitral tribunal was held on August 9, 2022. The pleadings
were completed on May 1, 2023. The parties led their evidence and
affidavits of evidence were filed. The initial period of one year expired on
January 11, 2024. Parties consented to the extension of the mandate by a
further period of six months. On July 8, 2024, the petitioner filed an
application before this Court under Section 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension of the mandate. Such extension
was granted by the Court till February 28, 2025. By a letter dated October
18, 2024, the petitioner sought termination of the mandate of the learned
Arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator was not entitled to take up
arbitration proceedings as he was the President of the State Commission of
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, at the time of his appointment. The rules of
service created a bar upon Presidents and Members of the State Commission
from undertaking arbitration work. The respondent was asked to respond to
the said letter. The said application filed by the petitioner was rejected on
October 30, 2024. The petitioner filed an application before this Court to
record termination of mandate and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.
5. By an order dated November 13, 2024 passed in AP-COM/923/2024, the
parties were directed to file their affidavits to the application and the
petitioner was granted liberty to pray for an adjournment before the learned
Arbitrator. By an order dated January 20, 2025, this Court upon hearing
the rival contentions of the parties, concluded their hearing and reserved the
matter for delivery of judgment. The arbitral proceedings were stayed.
Thereafter, this Court delivered judgment on February 26, 2025, rejecting
the prayer for termination, inter alia, holding that the mandate of the
learned Arbitrator did not terminate. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to
pray for extension of the mandate in view of the consumption of the time
before this Court due to the pendency of AP-COM/923/2024. The order was
challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. By order dated March 24, 2025,
the SLP was dismissed. The petitioner filed this application on May 13,
2025, for extension of the mandate. The contention of Mr. Bandopadhyay
that, sufficient cause for extension of the mandate, has not been shown, is
not accepted by the Court. In view of the facts which have been narrated
hereinabove, the Court deems it necessary to extend the mandate.
6. Evidence has been completed. Arguments have commenced. The matter
was pending before this Court for two months and also before the Hon'ble
Apex Court for some time. In the meantime, the mandate expired. This
Court is also conscious of the fact that the proceeding before the learned
arbitrator had been stayed for two months during the pendency of AP-
COM/923/2024.
7. Under such circumstances, ends of justice demand that, the mandate of
the learned arbitrator should be extended by a further period of eight
months from the date of communication of this order, to enable the learned
arbitrator to make and publish his award.
8. AP-COM/408/2025 stands disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
B.Pal/S.Kumar
