IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 04.02.2026 DELIVERED ON: 11.03.2026 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH AP 2 OF 2025 M/S SANKAT MOCHAN ENTERPRISES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Appearance: -

Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv.

.…………………….. for the Petitioner Mr. Sunil Kr. Singhania, Adv.

Ms. Priti Jain, Adv.

….…….… for the Respondent JUDGMENT Gaurang Kanth, J. :-

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 26.06.2024 and the Corrigendum dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Mihir Kumar Das. By the said Award, the learned Arbitrator rejected the claims preferred by the Petitioner and allowed the counterclaim filed by the Respondent.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Petition are briefly set out hereinbelow.

3. The Respondent issued E-Tender Notice No. 17/EL/WT/2017-18 dated

08.02.2018 for the work titled: “Part A – Provision of one additional High Mast Tower at Coaching Yard/TATA (near S/neck at BMPR end); Part B – Improvement of power supply arrangement at C&W sick line/ADTP.” The Petitioner, having emerged as the L-1 bidder, was awarded the said work vide Letter of Acceptance No. 17/EL/WT/2017-18/SME dated 09.07.2018. Thereafter, a formal Agreement being No. 03/2018-19/Agt/SME dated

09.10.2018 was executed between the parties.

4. The Petitioner commenced the work on 10.10.2018. In terms of the Agreement, the stipulated period for completion was six months, i.e., up to 08.01.2019. Admittedly, the work was not completed within the stipulated time. The Respondent, however, granted extension of time for completion of the work up to 30.03.2021 without imposition of penalty. Despite such extension, the work remained incomplete, and consequently, the Respondent terminated the contract vide letter dated 06.04.2021.

5. By letter dated 17.05.2021, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause and requested the General Manager of South Eastern Railway to appoint an Arbitrator. As no steps were taken in this regard, the Petitioner issued a legal notice dated 27.12.2021 furnishing the details of its alleged outstanding dues and calling upon the Respondent to make payment thereof.

6. Owing to the failure of the Respondent’s General Manager to appoint an Arbitrator, the Petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 493 of 2022 before this Hon’ble Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By order dated 12.08.2022, this Hon’ble Court appointed Mr. Mihir Kumar Das, Advocate, Bar Association Room No. 2, High Court at Calcutta, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

7. The Petitioner filed its Statement of Claim comprising ten claims aggregating to Rs. 16,09,350/-. The Respondent contested the claims in entirety and preferred a counterclaim amounting to Rs. 2,59,708.63/-.

8. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Sole Arbitrator framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether the agreement dated 09.10.2018 executed pursuant to the e-tender is legal and valid?

(ii) Whether the termination of the contract by the Respondent–Railway is legal and valid?

(iii) Whether the Claimant is entitled to the claims as prayed for in the Statement of Claim?

(iv) Whether the Respondent–Railway suffered loss and damages due to breach committed by the Claimant and, if so, whether it is entitled to the counterclaim as prayed for?

(v) To what other reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled?

9. Issue No. (i) was not pressed by either party before the learned Arbitrator.

The learned Arbitrator considered the remaining issues together and came to the finding that the Petitioner had abandoned approximately 5% of the contractual work and, despite repeated requests from the Respondent, failed to complete the same. On such finding, the learned Arbitrator held that the Respondent had validly terminated the contract. Consequently, the learned Arbitrat