Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division)

Order Date: 10 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Innovel Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Environ Solar Pvt. Ltd.); Respondent – Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited (formerly ATC Telecom Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.).
  • Background: Innovel was engaged by VIOM Networks Pvt. Ltd. for operation & maintenance of telecom sites in West Bengal. After Respondent acquired 51% of VIOM Networks, a fresh service agreement dated 18‑Jan‑2017 (amended, extended to 31‑Jan‑2020) was executed. Innovel changed its name on 23‑Sep‑2022; Respondent changed its name on 17‑Oct‑2024 during pendency of arbitration.
  • Claim: Innovel alleged non‑payment of twenty invoices amounting to Rs 64,84,061, with tax liability discharged on most invoices.
  • Arbitration Initiation: Application filed on 09‑Mar‑2021 before West Bengal Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSEFC) via “Samadhaan” portal, Case No. 212 of 2021. Six conciliation sessions failed on 15‑Feb‑2023; matter referred to arbitration under Section 18(3) of the MSME Development Act, 2006.
  • Arbitral Proceedings: Respondent filed statement of defence on 19‑Apr‑2023, admitting principal claim but disputing supporting documents (unsubstantiated). Four hearings held, last on 10‑Dec‑2024.
  • Arbitral Award: Rendered on 18‑Sep‑2025 by WBMSEFC, Kolkata. Award allowed claims of Rs 54,23,416; Rs 5,29,540; Rs 2,33,709 and disallowed Rs 2,97,937 and interest of Rs 30,95,819 on delayed bank‑guarantee release.
  • Extensions & Adjournments: Respondent sought extensions (communications dated 25‑Mar‑2023 and 03‑Apr‑2023); Council granted extension on 04‑Apr‑2023. Further adjournments sought on 29‑Aug‑2024 and 10‑Dec‑2024, after the statutory timeline expiry on 19‑Oct‑2024.
  • Parallel Litigation: Respondent filed a Section 34 challenge to the award before the Courts at New Delhi, registered as OMP (COMM.) No. 184 of 2025; maintainability of that challenge is pending.
  • Petitioner’s Relief Sought: Post‑award extension of time under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to complete and dispose of the arbitral reference, alleging balance of convenience in its favour and potential irreparable loss.
  • Legal Submissions:
  • Petitioner: Relied on Section 18(4) MSME Act (non‑obstante), Supreme Court precedents Harcharan Dass Gupta (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1111) and Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corp. v. Mahakali Foods (2023 6 SCC 401) for jurisdiction of the Facilitation Council; argued this Court is the “Court” under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act; cited divergent High Court views on applicability of Section 29A but sought extension as precaution; referenced Supreme Court decision C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera (2026 SCC OnLine SC 142) supporting maintainability of Section 29A applications post‑award.
  • Respondent: Asserted that the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the underlying agreement designates New Delhi courts for all post‑award proceedings; relied on Bombay High Court judgment Gammon Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. v. Sahay Industries (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 750), Ircon International Ltd. v. Pioneer Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. (FAO (COMM) 200/2022), and Odisha Power Generation Corp. Ltd. v. Techniche Consulting Service (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10386) that contractual jurisdiction prevails after award issuance.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that while the West Bengal MSME Facilitation Council has statutory jurisdiction to conduct the arbitration under Section 18 of the MSME Act, this does not determine the territorial jurisdiction of a Court for post‑award proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
  • The parties had expressly agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at New Delhi; no evidence showed a later alteration of this clause.
  • Consequently, the application under Section 29A filed before this Court is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.
  • The Court dismissed the petition without addressing the merits of the extension request, directing the petitioner to pursue any remedy before the competent New Delhi court.

Topics: Arbitration Jurisdiction, Section 29A Extension