Calcutta High Court
Surja Kanto Bhar vs Sayantan Bhattasali And Ors on 9 June, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OC 21
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
[COMMERCIAL DIVISION]
AP-COM/278/2025
SURJA KANTO BHAR
VS
SAYANTAN BHATTASALI AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : 9th June, 2025
Appearance:
Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Arijita Ghosh, Adv,
Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Adv.
... for petitioner.
Mr. Suman Basu, Adv.
Ms. Debapriya Ghosh, Adv.
... respondent nos. 1 to 5.
1. This is an application for appointment of a learned Arbitrator
for adjudication of the dispute which has arisen between the
parties. The respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the promoters.
The respondent no.2 is one of the land owners. The
respondent no.1 although is engaged for the promotion of the
premises also has a share in the land.
2. The respondent nos. 1 to 5 are represented by Mr. Suman
Basu, learned Advocate.
3. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 have refused service.
4. Affidavit-of-service is taken on record. Thus, service upon the
respondent nos. 6 and 7 are treated as good service, in view of
the refusal.
2
5. It appears that disputes had arisen between the parties in
respect of a development agreement. The said agreement
contains an arbitration clause, which states that all disputes
and differences including interpretation and construction of
the agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of two
independent arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party
and the umpire to be jointly appointed by the nominees of the
parties. The Courts of Chandernagore shall have the exclusive
jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine any application.
6. It appears that the cause of action has arisen within the
jurisdiction of this Court and this Court, as a referral Court,
can entertain this application. The issue with regard to
whether the dispute is a commercial or non-commercial one,
is already pending before the learned Commercial Court at
Rajarhat.
7. This Court is of the view that at the referral stage this Court is
not required to decide such issue. Thus, this question is kept
open. In any event, the dispute between the parties is covered
by an arbitration clause. The referral Court is only required to
refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the clause without
expressing any opinion as to the maintainability, arbitrability,
admissibility, limitation etc. The question whether this is a
commercial dispute or not is also not relevant for the referral
Court to embark upon a discussion and deliberation thereof.
This issue can be decided at the appropriate stage.
3
8. Under such circumstances, all issues raised by Mr. Basu,
including the fact that the disputes are not arbitrable and
premature, are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal.
9. A notice under Section 21 of the Said Act was issued and the
petitioner had nominated a learned Arbitrator. However, the
respondent did not agree to such proposal, and failed to reply
to the said notice. Both the parties submit before the Court
through their learned Advocates that a sole Arbitrator may be
appointed by the Court for settlement of the disputes as the
mechanisms provided in the agreement had failed. The
parties agree that a sole Arbitrator be appointed for
convenience of the parties.
10. Accordingly, the application is allowed by appointing Mr.
Debasish Roy, learned Senior Advocate, Bar Association Room
No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes
between the parties.
11. The learned Arbitrator shall comply with the provisions of
Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The
learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his remuneration as
per the schedule of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
12. The application being AP-COM 278 of 2025 is disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
JM /pa
[ad_1]
Source link