Dr. Prabir Mukherjee vs Sanjit Biswas on 25 August, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Dr. Prabir Mukherjee vs Sanjit Biswas on 25 August, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

OD-7

                               ORDER SHEET

                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               ORDINARY ORIGINAL AND CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE

                               AP/111/2025

                           DR. PRABIR MUKHERJEE
                                     VS
                                SANJIT BISWAS

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 25th August, 2025.

                                                                     Appearance:
                                                     Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Saibal Rakshit, Adv.
                                                               ...for the Petitioner

                                                         Mr. Ovik Sengupta, Adv.
                                                          . . . for the respondent.

The Court: This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator

in terms of Article 18 of the agreement for sale dated March 12, 2025.

The dispute arises out of non-registration of the property by the

respondent in favour of the petitioner, despite the petitioner having paid

a substantial amount as per the agreement for sale. The arbitration

clause provides that all disputes in connection with the interpretation or

implementation or purported termination of the deed, shall be settled

amicably between the parties and if such disputes are not settled

amicably, they shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator to be appointed by

the parties mutually.

Reliance has been placed on the covenants and clauses of the

said agreement in support of the contention that the dispute is alive. As

per the schedule for payment contained in the said agreement, it appears

that the payment for the balance sum would start from March 2026. The
2

seller was to register the property proportionate to the area, in the name

of the buyer. Thus, it is submitted that the time for performance of the

agreement had not expired. Under such circumstances, neither the

disputes nor the claims are barred by limitation. The allegation is that

the agreement for sale had not been registered.

Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that the agreement

was never acted upon. The petitioner had already taken the property on

lease and both the parties recognized the deed of lease and the said deed

of lease superseded the agreement for sale. The agreement for sale is not

in existence. Learned Advocate further submits that the claims are

inadmissible and/or barred by limitation.

Having considered the rival contentions, this Court is of the view

that the referral court is only required to satisfy itself about the prima

facie existence of an arbitration clause. The arbitration clause is not in

dispute. The invocation is also not in dispute. However, the issue as to

whether the subsequent deed of lease would amount to novation of the

agreement for sale, must be decided by the learned Arbitrator. All

objections raised by the learned Advocate for the respondent, including

the points of arbitrability, admissibility, limitation etc. are left open, for

being raised before the learned Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator

shall decide the same in accordance with law. The issue as to whether

the agreement can be admitted in evidence is also a matter to be taken at

the appropriate stage before the learned Arbitrator.

Under such circumstances, the application is allowed by

appointing Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, learned Advocate and a member of the
3

Bar Association (M. No.8100950043) as the Arbitrator, to arbitrate upon

the disputes between the parties.

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.

AP 111 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

S.Mandi/pa