SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED M/S. MULLICK AND CO. vs BUMI GEO ENGINEERING LTD AND ANR — AP-COM/410/2026
Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act ,1996 Section 29A(4)and(5). Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 12th June 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0019092026
e-Filing Number
21-05-2026
Filing Number
AP-COM/391/2026
Filing Date
22-05-2026
Registration No
AP-COM/410/2026
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
Petitioner(s)
SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED M/S. MULLICK AND CO.
Respondent(s)
BUMI GEO ENGINEERING LTD AND ANR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-06-2026 | NEW MOTIONS (SECTION 29 A) |
Orders
Case Summary: AP-COM/410/2026 The High Court at Calcutta granted SREI Equipment Finance Limited's application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandate by three months from June 12, 2026. The court found no undue delay by the sole arbitrator and, considering the proceedings were at the final arguments stage and in the interest of justice, extended the deadline for concluding proceedings and publishing the award. The respondent did not object to the extension. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: AP-COM/410/2026 The High Court at Calcutta granted SREI Equipment Finance Limited's application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend the arbitral tribunal's mandate by three months from June 12, 2026. The court found no undue delay by the sole arbitrator and, considering the proceedings were at the final arguments stage and in the interest of justice, extended the deadline for concluding proceedings and publishing the award. The respondent did not object 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