Calcutta High Court
FMAT/205/2026 of GROUP GENERAL MANAGER OF INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. Vs SUNSHINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. on 7 July 2026
No.16 07.07.2026 TN FMAT 205 of 2026 IA No: CAN 1 of 2026 CAN 2 of 2026 CAN 3 of 2026 Group General Manager of Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. and another Vs. Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Arijit Bardhan, Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Mr. Sabyasachi Dey, Mr. Gourab Mondal, Ms.
AD-30
Ct No.16
07.07.2026
TN
FMAT 205 of 2026
IA No: CAN 1 of 2026
CAN 2 of 2026
CAN 3 of 2026
Group General Manager of Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. and another
Vs.
Sunshine Caterers Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Arijit Bardhan,
Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta,
Mr. Sabyasachi Dey,
Mr. Gourab Mondal,
Ms. Afreen Begum,
Ms. C. Chatterjee,
Ms. A. Roy
....for the appellants
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for the appellants hands over a copy of an order dated July 02, 2026, passed in connection with an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an ad interim order passed in which has been assailed in the present appeal.
2. From the said order and as per the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, it transpires that the petitioner/respondent in the Section 9 application (Miscellaneous Case No. 1555 of 2026), subsequent to the passing of the impugned order, sought to withdraw such application but was not permitted to do so in view of the serious allegations raised therein.
3. Although learned counsel for the appellants seeks to submit before the Court that the petitioner/respondent was guilty of suppression of material facts, since we are not taking up the matter
on merits, we choose not to go into such allegations at this stage.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the appeal having been rendered infructuous due to non-extension of the limited ad interim order which has been assailed herein, FMAT
of is dismissed as infructuous.
5. We further reiterate that the merits of the matter have not been gone into at all.
6. CAN 1 of 2026, CAN 2 of 2026 and CAN 3 of 2026 are also disposed of in the light of the above observations.
7. There will be no order as to costs.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)
(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)