PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED S. JALAN AND CO. vs BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED — AP-COM/235/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 13th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCO0011592026

e-Filing Number

27-03-2026

Filing Number

AP-COM/222/2026

Filing Date

30-Mar-2026

Registration No

AP-COM/235/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

Coram

Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Arbitration ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

CURRENT RECORD DEPARTMENT

Decision Date

13-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED S. JALAN AND CO.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Gaurang KanthView PDF

    The Calcutta High Court extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by eight months under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the dispute between Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The Court found no undue delay by the sole arbitrator, who had completed 25 sittings and was at the evidence-recording stage, and requested timely conclusion of proceedings and publication of the award within the extended period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Apr-2026

    New Motions (Section 29 A)

    Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

  4. 30-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. AP-COM/235/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Calcutta High Court extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by eight months under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the dispute between Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited and Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. The Court found no undue delay by the sole arbitrator, who had completed 25 sittings and was at the evidence-recording stage, and requested timely conclusion of proceedings and publication of the award within the extended period. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case