TECHNOFAB ENGINEERING-SN ENVIROTECH JV AND ORS SOMNATH GANGOPADHYAY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. — WPA/6833/2026

Case under The Contract ,1872 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 23rd March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 23-Mar-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0134512026

Filing Number

WPA/6850/2026

Filing Date

19-Mar-2026

Registration No

WPA/6833/2026

Registration Date

19-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Residuary ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

23-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 27-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

The Contract ,1872 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.TECHNOFAB ENGINEERING-SN ENVIROTECH JV AND ORS SOMNATH GANGOPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 23-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna RaoView PDF

    The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Technofab Engineering-SN Envirotech JV, finding it not maintainable because the petitioners had already filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court, which had refused interim injunction. The court reasoned that petitioners should pursue their remedy through the Commercial Appellate Division rather than bypass it via writ petition under Article 226, though it requested the Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the arbitration application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    New Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao

  4. 19-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPA/6833/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Technofab Engineering-SN Envirotech JV, finding it not maintainable because the petitioners had already filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court, which had refused interim injunction. The court reasoned that petitioners should pursue their remedy through the Commercial Appellate Division rather than bypass it via writ petition under Article 226, though it requested the Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the arbitration application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case