Calcutta High Court
M/S. Zamil Air Conditioners India Pvt. ... vs M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Limited on 25 November, 2025
OCD-4
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
(Commercial Division)
AP-COM/855/2025
M/S. ZAMIL AIR CONDITIONERS INDIA PVT. LTD.
VS
M/S. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 25th November, 2025.
Appearance
Mr. Mrinal Beri, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Ratul Das, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Debasmita Nandi, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court: The petitioner has filed the present application under
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension
of time period for conclusion of the arbitral proceedings and publication of
the arbitral award.
It is the case of the petitioner that this Court vide order dated
18.05.2022, appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 24.08.2023.
Thereafter, with the consent of both sides, the mandate of the arbitral
tribunal was extended by a further period of six months up to 23.02.2025.
2
The respondent's evidence has since been concluded and the final
arguments are yet to commence. In these circumstances, the petitioner has
filed the present application seeking extension of six months for conclusion
of the proceedings and publication of the award.
Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the present application.
He states that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for
the delay in filing the application. He further states that after the expiry of
the mandate of the Tribunal on 23.02.2025, the petitioner took more than
nine months to file the present application. He also submits that the
petitioner, in his pleadings has failed to show sufficient cause and cogent
reasons for the delay in filing of the application. He has relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohan Builders (India) Private
Limited versus Berger Paints India Limited reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2494 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
Skylark Cagers India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Institute of Liver and Biliary
Sciences reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1276 to buttress his argument
that in case the petitioner fails to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing
of the application, the same shall not be automatically extended. He has
relied on Paragraphs 15 and 19 of the Supreme Court judgment which read
as follow:-
"15. Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) highlights that an
interpretation allowing an extension application post the expiry period
would encourage rogue litigants and render the timeline for making
the award inconsequential. However, it is apposite to note that under
Section 29A(5), the power of the court to extend the time is to be
3
exercised only in cases where there is sufficient cause for such
extension. Such extension is not granted mechanically on filing of the
application. The judicial discretion of the court in terms of the
enactment acts as a deterrent against any party abusing the process
of law or espousing a frivolous or vexatious application. Further, the
court can impose terms and conditions while granting an extension.
Delay, even on the part of the arbitral tribunal, is not
countenanced.28 The first proviso to Section 29A(4) permits a fee
reduction of up to five percent for each month of delay attributable to
the arbitral tribunal.
...
19. In view of the above discussion, we hold that an application
for extension of the time period for passing an arbitral award under
Section 29A(4) read with Section 29A(5) is maintainable even after the
expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period, as the
case may be. The court while adjudicating such extension applications
will be guided by the principle of sufficient cause and our observations
in paragraph 15 of the judgment."
Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has not been able
to file his affidavit-in-opposition and that the same would contain only the
legal submission which he has already advanced before this Court.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the conduct of the respondent, wherein it has been observed by the
tribunal in its various sittings dated 28.11.2022, 24.02.2023 and
05.06.2023 that the respondent has not been participating in the arbitral
proceedings and despite notice, has been avoiding the arbitral proceedings.
He has further referred to an order dated 20.06.2023 of the arbitral tribunal
wherein it has been noted that the respondent had taken several extensions
for filing of the pleadings but had failed to do so and the tribunal has
expressed its anguish in this regard. Mr. Beri submits that the respondent
has also filed his counter-claim but has not been diligent in pusuing the
same.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the delay in filing the
application was neither deliberate nor intentional. According to him, two
counter-claims were proceeding simultaneously and evidence was being
recorded in both. Due to inadvertent oversight, the present application has
been filed belatedly.
This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
It is noted that the arbitral tribunal has substantially progressed and
the matter is presently at the stage of final arguments. There has been no
material to indicate any delay attributable to the learned Arbitrator in
conducting the proceedings. The respondent does not dispute that an
extension is required to conclude the proceedings, though he has taken the
ground that the petitioner delayed in pursuing the application within time.
Be that as it may, this Court concurs with the respondent that the
petitioner ought to have approached this Court with due promptitude to
ensure the expeditious completion of the proceedings before the arbitral
tribunal. Nonetheless, such delay, by itself, cannot be permitted to defeat or
extinguish the substantive rights of the parties. Having regard to the
substantial progress already made in the arbitration and in the interest of
justice, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal is, accordingly, extended for a
further period of six months from today.
The arbitral tribunal is requested to make all endeavour to conclude
the arbitral proceedings and publish the award within the extended time
period.
With the aforesaid observation, the present arbitration petition is
disposed of.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
R.Bhar
