SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED M/S. MULLICK AND CO. vs S G CORPORATION JOINT VENTURE AND ORS — AP-COM/409/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A(4)and(5). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.

CNR: WBCHCO0019082026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

21-05-2026

Filing Number

AP-COM/390/2026

Filing Date

22-05-2026

Registration No

AP-COM/409/2026

Registration Date

22-05-2026

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

12th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A(4)and(5)

Petitioner(s)

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

Respondent(s)

S G CORPORATION JOINT VENTURE AND ORS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

12-06-2026

NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)

Orders

12-06-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

Case Summary: The High Court at Calcutta extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by six months (from June 12, 2026) under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. SREI Equipment Finance sought the extension to conclude proceedings against S G Corporation Joint Venture, which failed to participate and was proceeded ex-parte. The court found no undue delay by the arbitrator and, given the advanced stage of final arguments, granted the extension requesting the arbitrator complete proceedings within the new timeframe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court at Calcutta extended the arbitral tribunal's mandate by six months (from June 12, 2026) under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. SREI Equipment Finance sought the extension to conclude proceedings against S G Corporation Joint Venture, which failed to participate and was proceeded ex-parte. The court found no undue delay by the arbitrator and, given the advanced stage of final arguments, granted the extension requesting the arbitrator complete proceedings within the new timeframe. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case