SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED M/S. MULLICK AND CO. vs T. K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. — AP-COM/407/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A(3)&(4). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: WBCHCO0019062026

e-Filing Number

22-05-2026

Filing Number

AP-COM/388/2026

Filing Date

22-May-2026

Registration No

AP-COM/407/2026

Registration Date

22-May-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

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A(3)&(4)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED M/S. MULLICK AND CO.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.T. K. ENGINEERING CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Gaurang KanthView PDF

    Case Summary: AP-COM/407/2026 The High Court at Calcutta extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by six months to enable conclusion of proceedings and publication of the award. The court found no undue delay by the arbitrator despite the one-year statutory period expiring on 17.02.2025, considering the petitioner's concurrent CIRP proceedings and the case being at advanced final arguments stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    New Motions (Section 29 A)

    Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth

  4. 22-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. AP-COM/407/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: AP-COM/407/2026 The High Court at Calcutta extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by six months to enable conclusion of proceedings and publication of the award. The court found no undue delay by the arbitrator despite the one-year statutory period expiring on 17.02.2025, considering the petitioner's concurrent CIRP proceedings and the case being at advanced final arguments stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case