Authority: Calcutta High Court (Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Aryak Dutt)

Order Date: 14.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: State of West Bengal & Anr. (Appellant) vs. M/S Saha Construction & Company (Respondent).
  • Appeal (AO‑COM 62 of 2025, IA No: CAN/4/2026) against the Commercial Court, Siliguri order dated 05‑08‑2025 dismissing a Section 34 petition on limitation grounds.
  • Under the original tender (Notice No.21/A of 1995‑96) for reconstruction of the Well Foundation Bridge, respondent won the contract and a formal agreement was executed.
  • Disputes led to arbitration before a retired Judge of the High Court; award dated 30‑08‑2011 was issued. Appellants received only a photocopy on 28‑09‑2011.
  • Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by appellants on 23‑02‑2012 (note: the text contains a discrepancy, also mentions filing on 23‑02‑2011, but the date is admitted as 23‑02‑2012).
  • The Commercial Court dismissed the petition on limitation grounds, invoking Section 34(3).
  • The trial District Judge, on 07‑11‑2016, held the petition was not barred by limitation; this order was later challenged by the respondent via a revisional application under Article 227, which was dismissed for default on 04‑05‑2017.
  • The respondent argued the District Judge lacked jurisdiction and that limitation should be re‑examined, citing the receipt of the award on 28‑09‑2011 and the filing date of the petition.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court held that the limitation issue had been conclusively decided on 07‑11‑2016 and, under the principle of res judicata, could not be reopened.
  • The impugned order dated 05‑08‑2025 was set aside.
  • The matter (Misc. Arbitration (Commercial) Case No.07 of 2022) was remanded to the Commercial Court at Siliguri for a decision on merits.
  • AO‑COM/62 of 2025 along with IA No: CAN/4/2026 was disposed of without any order as to costs.
  • The Court declined to issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the Section 34 petition, noting the Supreme Court’s request not to impose such mandatory directions.

Topics: Court Judgment, Arbitration Limitation, Res Judicata