Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Mideast Integrated Steels Limited
2026 Latest Caselaw 2782 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Srei Equipment Finance Limited vs Mideast Integrated Steels Limited on 8 April, 2026

OCD-6
                              ORDER SHEET

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                         COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                            AP-COM/220/2026

                    SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED
                                 VS
                  MIDEAST INTEGRATED STEELS LIMITED


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
  Date : 8th April, 2026.

                                                                  Appearance:
                                                 Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
                                                      Mr. Sariful Haque, Adv.
                                                Mr. Saubhik Chowdhury, Adv.
                                                Ms. Suchisattwa Mallick, Adv.
                                                           ...for the petitioner

                                                     Mr. Rohit Mukherji, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
                                                        Ms. Champa Pal, Adv.
                                                          ...for the respondent

The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension

of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal for conclusion of the arbitral

proceedings and publication of the arbitral award.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated

22.02.2023 appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between

the parties. The Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 01.04.2024 closed the

respondent's right to file Statement of Defence. The respondent preferred

O.S. 2556 of 2024 challenging the order dated 01.04.2024. This Court vide

order dated 24.01.2025 allowed the respondent to file its Statement of

Defence. In view thereof, the respondent filed the Statement of Defence

dated 24.01.2025. On expiry of one year i.e., 25.01.2026, the Tribunal

requested the parties to give consent for the extension of the mandate.

However, learned Counsel for the respondent had refused the said extension

compelling the petitioner to file the present petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the Tribunal has

already conducted more than 42 hearings and now the matter is at the stage

of recording of evidence.

Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no reason to

oppose the extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal but will not

consent to any of the submissions made in the present petition to be

admitted.

Upon consideration of the submissions of both the parties and the

materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that there has been no

undue or unwarranted delay on the part of the learned sole Arbitrator in

conducting the proceedings.

Having regard to the stage of the proceedings and in the interest of

justice, the mandate of the learned sole Arbitrator is extended further for a

period of six months from today.

The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to make all reasonable

endeavours to conclude the arbitral proceedings and publish the arbitral

award within the extended time period.

Since affidavits have not been exchanged, none of the contentions are

deemed to be admitted.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed

of.

(GAURANG KANTH, J.)

R.Bhar