IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Before:

The Hon’ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

C.O. 3074 of 2025

Durgapur Freight Terminal Pvt. Ltd.

VS.

Titagarh Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sakya Sen

Mr. Rishad Medora

Mr. Ramendu Agarwal

….. advocates

For the Opposite Party no. 1 : Mr. Rajarshi Dutta

Mr. Soumyadeb Singha

Mr. Hiranyak Ganguly

Ms. S. Chatterjee

…… advocates

For the Opposite Party no. 2 : Mr. Ayan Dutta

Mr. Abhishek Jain …… advocates Reserved on : 10.09.2025 Judgment on : 05.12.2025

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the

instance of the 1^st respondent in an arbitration proceeding and is directed against an order being No. 24 dated July 17, 2025 passed by the learned

Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore in Misc. Arb. (Com) No. 52 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the 1996 Act”) stood rejected.

3. Facts giving rise to the instant civil revision application in a nutshell are as

follows-

Disputes and differences arose out the agreement dated January 1, 2017 between the parties. Such disputes were referred to arbitration and the parties nominated their arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the respective parties appointed the Presiding Arbitrator thereby constituting the Arbitral Tribunal.

4. The first sitting of the Arbitral Tribunal was held on July 26, 2020.

Statement of Claim was filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 on August 17, 2020. Statement of Defence with Counter Claim was filed by the petitioner on December 5, 2020. Rejoinder was filed by the Opposite Party no. 1 on January 17, 2021. About 19 sittings were held by the Tribunal from January 17, 2021 to February 10, 2022. On February 10, 2022 both the parties advanced their arguments and the hearing was concluded and the matter was reserved for orders. On November 9, 2022, petitioner filed an application under Section 14 of the 1996 Act before the learned Judge of the Commercial Court at Alipore praying for a declaration that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal has terminated. Arbitral Tribunal published the Award on November 17, 2022. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the learned Judge Commercial Court at Alipore, which is pending.

5. The application under Section 14 of the 1996 Act stood dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the Award debtor approached this Court.

6. Mr. Sen learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal expired on January 16, 2022 if the one year period is computed from the date of filing the rejoinder. He contended that the Arbitral Tribunal became functus officio in terms of Section 29A(4) as no application was filed by the parties before the Court seeking extension of time under Section 29A(1) and 29A(3)(v) of the 1996 Act. He contended that the petitioner filed an application under Section 14 and after period of 8 days from the date of communication of the factum of filing the said application, the Arbitral Tribunal made and published the award on November 17, 2022. Mr. Sen contended that the benefit conferred by the order dated 10th January, 2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby extending the period of limitation under various statutes, would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as the parties waived such benefit by participating in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Sen placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brainlink International, INC & Anr. vs. HT Media Limited & Anr. which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an order dated March 14, 2022 passed in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos. 3579/2022. For the same proposition, Mr. Sen placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Love