[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Berger Paints India Limited vs Mr. P. S. Narayana Murthy on 11 March, 2026
OCD-12
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/136/2026
BERGER PAINTS INDIA LIMITED
VS
MR. P. S. NARAYANA MURTHY
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 11th March, 2026.
Appearance
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Adv.
Mr. Snehasis Sen, Adv.
Mr. Soham Sen, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Mihika Roy, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Swarnendu Chatterjee, Adv.
Ms. Sormi Dutta, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court: Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent is taken on
record.
The petitioner has filed 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 proceeding and
publication of the arbitral award.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent
herein, being the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, invoked arbitration by
issuing a notice dated 15.12.2023 in accordance with Section 21 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent
proposed the name of Justice Ashok Kumar Das Adhikari (Retd.) as the sole
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. It is submitted
that the learned Sole Arbitrator conveyed his consent to act as the arbitrator
by a letter dated 03.04.2024 and thereafter issued directions by a
communication dated 18.04.2024 for convening the first sitting. The first
sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal was held on 25.04.2024. During the said
sitting, the learned Arbitrator made a disclosure as contemplated under
Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, declaring that he
had no interest, financial, business, professional, or otherwise, in the
parties or in the subject matter of the dispute which could give rise to any
justifiable doubts regarding his independence or impartiality.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Arbitral
Tribunal has, till date, conducted more than 31 sittings and the proceedings
have now reached the stage of final arguments. In these circumstances, the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner (who is the respondent before the Arbitral
Tribunal) seeks extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent (the Claimant before the Arbitral
Tribunal) opposes the present petition and submits that the learned
Arbitrator has unduly delayed the arbitral proceedings and has failed to
adhere to the timeline prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. It is alleged that the learned Arbitrator has shown bias by granting
unnecessary adjournments to the Petitioner. It is further contended that,
while granting extensions of time for filing documents and pleadings, the
learned Arbitrator has not indicated sufficient reasons in the orders and
that such orders reflect non-application of mind while granting
adjournments. Though it has also been alleged in the affidavit-in-opposition
that the learned Arbitrator failed to furnish a declaration in terms of Section
12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the said contention has not
been pressed before this Court.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent has relied
upon the judgment in Rohan Builders (India) Private Limited v. Berger
Paints India Limited, reported in (2025) 10 SCC, to contend that while
exercising powers under Section 29A of the Act, this Court ought to examine
whether the Arbitrator has recorded sufficient grounds and reasons while
conducting the proceedings. According to him, it must also be ensured that
the learned Arbitrator has not mechanically granted extensions of time to
any party, as such conduct may reflect bias or confer an undue advantage
upon one of the parties.
In support of the said contention, learned Senior Counsel has
referred to the timeline of the proceedings and, in particular, submitted that
the Petitioner was granted undue time to file additional documents which,
according to the Respondent, ought to have been available to the Petitioner
at the stage when the statement of defence was filed. It is contended that the
grant of additional time for filing such documents reflects undue indulgence
in favour of the Petitioner. It has also been pointed out that the Petitioner
was granted extension of time for filing the affidavit of evidence, which,
according to the Respondent, amounts to granting an unwarranted favour to
the Petitioner.
This Court has considered the arguments advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties and has perused the materials on record.
The power of the Court under Section 29A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is essentially supervisory and is to be exercised in aid
of the arbitral process. While considering an application for extension of the
mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal, the Court is not expected to scrutinize
every procedural order passed during the course of the arbitral proceedings
or to substitute its own view for that of the Tribunal in matters relating to
conduct of the proceedings. The limited enquiry before the Court is whether
the arbitral proceedings have suffered from any undue, unexplained, or
deliberate delay attributable to the Arbitral Tribunal. Section 29A has been
enacted with the twin objective of ensuring expeditious completion of
arbitration while at the same time preserving the autonomy of the arbitral
process and minimizing judicial interference. Therefore, where the
proceedings have substantially progressed and there is nothing on record to
indicate that the Tribunal has been responsible for any unwarranted delay,
the Court would ordinarily lean in favour of extending the mandate of the
Arbitral Tribunal so as to enable it to conclude the proceedings and render
the arbitral award, rather than disrupting the arbitral process at an
advanced stage.
In the present case, the learned Arbitrator entered upon the reference
and held the first sitting on 25.04.2024. The Statement of Claim was filed on
30.04.2024. The Petitioner thereafter sought time to file its Statement of
Defence along with a counterclaim, which was eventually filed on
06.08.2024. The Rejoinder was filed on 15.08.2024 and taken on record on
22.08.2024. A Sur-Rejoinder was subsequently filed on 20.09.2024, and the
parties also filed additional documents thereafter. The Respondent filed its
Affidavit of Evidence on 25.01.2025, and the examination-in-chief and
cross-examination of the Respondent's witness were conducted between the
8th and 19th sittings of the Tribunal. Upon completion of one year from the
date of completion of pleadings on 22.08.2025, the mandate of the Arbitral
Tribunal was, with the consent of the parties, extended by a further period
of six months until 22.02.2026. The said extension was recorded in the 21st
Minutes of Meeting held on 13.10.2025. Subsequently, the Affidavit of
Evidence of the Petitioner's first witness was filed on 03.11.2025 and his
examination-in-chief was conducted from the 22nd meeting till the 26th
sitting held on 06.12.2025. The Petitioner filed the Affidavit of Evidence of
its second witness on 15.12.2025, whose examination-in-chief and cross-
examination were conducted during the 27th and 28th sittings held on
20.12.2025. The Affidavit of Evidence of the Petitioner's third and final
witness was filed on 19.01.2026 and his evidence was concluded on
01.02.2026. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent commenced on
14.02.2026 but could not be concluded. The next date of hearing has been
fixed on 19.03.2026, subject to extension of the mandate of the Arbitral
Tribunal by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the arbitral
proceedings have substantially progressed and the matter is presently at the
stage of final arguments. Nothing has been placed on record to demonstrate
that there has been any deliberate or undue delay on the part of the learned
Arbitral Tribunal in conducting the proceedings. This Court has also
examined the Minutes of the arbitral proceedings in detail, and it does not
appear therefrom that any delay in the conduct of the proceedings can be
attributed to the learned Sole Arbitrator. On the contrary, the records
indicate that the Tribunal has been actively proceeding with the matter and
has conducted several sittings. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal deserves to be extended so as
to enable the learned Arbitrator to conclude the proceedings and render the
award.
Accordingly, the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator stands
extended for a further period of six months from the date of this order.
The learned Arbitrator is requested to make all endeavours to
conclude the proceedings and publish the arbitral award within the
extended period.
With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed
of.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
S. Mandi
