Texmaco Rail and Engineering Limited, Vs Steel Authority of India

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:3159

¶3

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶4

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.01.21 16:54:10 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

ARBAP No. 1 of 2026

¶8

Texmaco Rail And Engineering Limited, Having Registered Office At Belgharia, Kolkata 700 056. Represented Through Its Chief Executive Rail Epc Division Sh. Udyavar Vittal Kamath.

¶9

... Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

Steel Authority Of India Room No. 270 Law Department Ispat Bhawan Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg- 490001.

¶12

... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate

¶13

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶14

20/01/2026

¶15

Initially the applicant filed an arbitration request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) before this Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶16

2

¶17

Having considered the entire aspects of the matter, vide order dated 13.10.2023, this Court allowed the request and appointed Justice (Retd.) G. Minhajuddin, former Judge of this Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the contract between the parties.

¶18

Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the parties approached the Sole Arbitrator, who initiated the proceedings on 1.11.2023 to decide the dispute arose between them and the same is continued. It is evident that the pleadings were completed within the statutory period of six months as contemplated under Section 23(4) of the Act i.e. on 30/04/2024. The period of 12 months expired on 30/04/2025. Thereafter, both the parties mutually agreed to extend the time period for pronouncing of the Award by six months, which expired on 31/10/2025. By order dated 26/10/2025, learned Sole Arbitrator observed that owing to his health issue, the Award could not be passed and the mandate of Sole Arbitrator is due to expire on 31/10/2025 and hence, he directed both the parties to seek extension of time from this Court.

¶19

On the basis of the aforesaid order of the learned Sole Arbitrator, both the parties filed the instant application jointly under Section 29A of the Act of 1996, seeking extension of time by a further period of four months.

¶20

(i) Learned counsel for the parties submit that the arbitration proceedings arising out of the contract dated 01.08.2015 between the applicant and the respondent could not be concluded within the statutory period due to the voluminous documentary evidence,

¶21

3

¶22

the complexities of the issues involved, and the health-related unavailability of the learned Sole Arbitrator. Learned counsel further submits that the parties had jointly filed an application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Learned Commercial Court, which was returned as not maintainable, with the observation that such an extension is maintainable only before this Court. The parties, therefore, jointly pray that the time for disposal of the arbitral proceedings be extended by a further period of four months, i.e., till 28.02.2026, in the interest of justice.

¶23

(ii) Learned counsel for the parties submits that the present application is bona fide and filed jointly solely for the purpose of ensuring completion of the arbitral proceedings in a fair and just manner. It is further contended that no prejudice would be caused to either party by the grant of the requested extension, and it would serve the interests of justice to allow the learned Sole Arbitrator sufficient time to consider and compile the voluminous evidence and deliver a reasoned award.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended herein.

¶25

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, this Court finds that the arbitration proceedings could not be concluded within the statutory period due to the voluminous documentary evidence, complexities of the issues involved, and the health-related unavailability of the learned Sole Arbitrator. The parties have acted jointly and in good faith are seeking an

¶26

4

¶27

extension of time, and no prejudice is likely to be caused to either of the parties by granting extension.

¶28

In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present application, in the interest of justice.

¶29

Accordingly, the joint application under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed . The time for disposal of the arbitral proceedings is hereby extended by a further period of four months, i.e., from 01.11.2025 up to 28.02.2026. The Learned Sole Arbitrator shall proceed with the arbitration and pass the award within the extended period, in accordance with law.

¶30

$. Bhilwar

Texmaco Rail and Engineering Limited, v. Steel Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Texmaco Rail and Engineering Limited, v. Steel Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salikram Sonkar Vs Vishal Sonkar

Smt. Itwara Bai (Died) Vs Doojram

Sandeep Sen Vs Sujan Singh Gambhir and Ors.

Anantram Vs Shobha Singh

Himanshu Patel Vs Smt. Kumudlata Patel

Chandarmati Died Through legal Representative Vs Chandrika