BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED KANCHAN JAJU vs SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY — AP-COM/266/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRACTUOUS on 08th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCO0013122026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

08-04-2026

Filing Number

AP-COM/254/2026

Filing Date

08-04-2026

Registration No

AP-COM/266/2026

Registration Date

08-04-2026

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

08th May 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED AS INFRACTUOUS

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section NA

Petitioner(s)

BRIDGE AND ROOF COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED KANCHAN JAJU

Respondent(s)

SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

13-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 9)

08-05-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 9)

06-05-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 9)

27-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 9)

24-04-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 9)

Orders

08-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

Case Summary: AP-COM/266/2026 Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited sought restraint against South Eastern Railway from enforcing a termination letter dated 29.03.2026 and encashing performance security bank guarantees totaling Rs. 9.29 crore under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petition as infructuous because the bank guarantees had already been invoked before the hearing, rendering the relief sought impossible to grant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: AP-COM/266/2026 Bridge and Roof Company (India) Limited sought restraint against South Eastern Railway from enforcing a termination letter dated 29.03.2026 and encashing performance security bank guarantees totaling Rs. 9.29 crore under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the petition as infructuous because the bank guarantees had already been invoked before the hearing, rendering the relief sought impossible to grant. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case