Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/2/2024 In AP/812/2022 RECOVERY DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. PULIN BAIDYA AND AP/44/2025 RECOVERY DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PULIN BAIDYA BEFORE
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO. GA/2/2024 In AP/812/2022 RECOVERY DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs PULIN BAIDYA AND AP/44/2025 RECOVERY DEALERS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PULIN BAIDYA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date : 25th March, 2025 Appearance : Mr. Saptarshi Datta, Adv. Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Srinjita Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Pourush Kanti Pal, Adv. Mr. Debdut Hore, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Das, Adv. Mr.Meghanil Maul, Adv. The Court : This is an application for extension of the mandate of the learned arbitrator. It is submitted by the parties that the mandate of the learned arbitrator expired sometime in November 2024. Parties agree that the mandate should be extended so that the proceedings can be concluded. It is submitted that the proceedings are at the stage of arguments. Considering the prayers made in the arbitration petition, this Court is of the view that, for the ends of justice, the 2 mandate of the learned arbitrator should be extended by a further period of eight months from date of communication of this order. Accordingly, the learned arbitrator shall make and publish his award within a period of eight months from the date of communication of this order. AP/44/2025 is the number allotted by the department upon renumbering GA/2/2024 as a fresh application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, AP/44/2025 and GA/2/2024 stand disposed of. (SHAMPA SARKAR,J.) sd/ 3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 29A.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 25 Mar 2025. The bench was SHAMPA SARKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.