SRI GOUTAM MUKHERJEE AND ANR JEENIA RUDRA vs BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR — AP/66/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0013972026
Filing Number
AP/63/2026
Filing Date
17-04-2026
Registration No
AP/66/2026
Registration Date
17-04-2026
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
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SRI GOUTAM MUKHERJEE AND ANR JEENIA RUDRA
Respondent(s)
BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)
NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)
NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)
NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A) |
| 19-05-2026 | NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A) |
| 05-05-2026 | NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A) |
| 28-04-2026 | NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A) |
Orders
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by eight months (from May 19, 2026) to allow completion of arbitral proceedings between the petitioners and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company. The Court found no undue delay by the current arbitrator (appointed September 2025 after two previous arbitrators withdrew) and granted the extension in the interest of justice, given the proceedings were at the evidence-recording stage. Both parties consented to the extension. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The High Court at Calcutta extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal by eight months (from May 19, 2026) to allow completion of arbitral proceedings between the petitioners and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company. The Court found no undue delay by the current arbitrator (appointed September 2025 after two previous arbitrators withdrew) and granted the extension in the interest of justice, given the proceedings were at the evidence-recording stage. Both parties consented to the extension. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts