Hooghly Mills Company Limited Vs Acumen (J) Marketing Private Limited (Calcutta High Court)
Summary: The Calcutta High Court retrospectively extended an arbitral tribunal’s mandate through 8 August 2026, the date on which its award was passed. Hooghly Mills Company Limited had sought an extension under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court had constituted the tribunal on 5 February 2021. After the pleadings were completed, its mandate was extended by six months with the parties’ consent. The Court granted further extensions on 21 January 2025 and 28 January 2026, for one year and six months respectively. The last extension expired before the arbitrator passed the award at 2:00 p.m. on 8 August 2026.
The respondent objected that the arbitrator had since been elevated to the Bench and was therefore incompetent to pass the award. The Court rejected that objection: the arbitrator assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. that day, after passing the award.
Finding no undue or unwarranted delay by the sole arbitrator and no demonstrated prejudice from the lapse in mandate, the Court extended the mandate retrospectively from the expiry of the previous extension up to and including 8 August 2026. It stated that the extension validated the arbitral proceedings and the award passed on that date, and disposed of the petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record.
The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 29A(4) 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.
This Court vide order dated 05.02.2021 constituted the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The pleadings were completed and with the consent of the parties, the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal was extended for a further period of six months. Subsequently, this Court vide orders dated 21.01.2025 and 28.01.2026 further extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by one year and six months respectively.
Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the arbitral award was published on 8th August, 2026.
Learned Counsel for the respondent raises an objection that the learned Arbitrator, having since been elevated to the Bench, was not competent to have passed the award. This objection is misconceived. The learned Arbitrator assumed judicial office upon taking oath at 4:15 p.m. on 8th August, 2026, whereas the award was passed earlier that day, at 2:00 p.m., prior to his elevation. The objection, therefore, does not affect the validity or publication of the award.
Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by the parties and the material 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 arbitral proceedings.
It is noted that the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal, as last extended by this Court’s order dated 28.01.2026 for a period of six months, stood expired prior to the passing of the award on 8th August, 2026. In view of the fact that the award has since been rendered, and no prejudice having been demonstrated by either party on account of the said lapse, this Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, extends the mandate of the learned Arbitral Tribunal retrospectively, with effect from the date of expiry of the previous extension, up to and including 8th August, 2026, so as to validate the arbitral proceedings and the award passed on that date.
With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
