Ram Kumar Dubey And ORS. v. Keshav Kumar Debey

ORDER

OCD-13

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/787/2025 RAM KUMAR DUBEY AND ORS.

VS KESHAV KUMAR DEBEY

BEFORE

HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date: November 10, 2025.

Appearance:- Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. D. Dhar, Adv.

Ms. Debanjana Paul, Adv.

...for petitioners.

Mr. Pourush Bandhyopadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Surabita Biswas, Adv.

...for respondent.

The Court:- The present application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking extension of time for conclusion of the arbitral proceeding and publication of the award. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that by an order dated 28.05.2022, this Court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The pleadings were completed on 18.01.2023. Thereafter, with the consent of both the parties the mandate of the arbitral tribunal was extended by six months, upto 28.07.2024. Subsequently this Court vide order dated 18.09.2024, further extended the mandate of the arbitral tribunal by

eight months. The matter was thereafter listed and was at the stage of final argument and the mandate of the arbitral tribunal expired on 21st March, 2025. Again, vide order dated 04.03.2025 this Court extended the time period upto 22nd September, 2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the hearing has already concluded and that the award was reserved on 28.04.2025. However, the learned sole arbitrator sought certain clarification from the party, and the stay award could not be published within extended period, i,e, on or before 22nd September, 2025.

In view thereof, present application has been filed seeking further extension of timeline for the learned sole arbitrator to conclude proceedings and publish the award. This is the third application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the arbitral tribunal. On earlier occasions, this Court had extended timeline of eight months and six months respectively. However, considering the fact that the arbitral tribunal has concluded hearings and recorded extensive evidence let by both parties, this Court is satisfied that there has been no undue and unwarranted delay on the part of the learned sole arbitrator in concluding the proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection to the mandate being extended further. Accordingly, mandate of the sole arbitrator is extended for a period of four months from today. Learned sole arbitrator is requested to ensure that the arbitral proceedings are concluded and the award is published within the time

extended. With the above observation and direction the present application is disposed of.

(GAURANG KANTH, J.) R. D. Barua