Calcutta High Court
Anjan Goswami vs Amit Guha Roy on 11 March, 2025
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
ORDER OD-2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION
AP/676/2022
ANJAN GOSWAMI
VS
AMIT GUHA ROY
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 11th March, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Ajay Debnath, Adv.
Mr. Sujit Saha, Adv.
Ms. P. Naskar, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Prasanta Kumar Bagchi, Adv.
Ms. Lata Saha, Adv.
1. By an Order dated March 4, 2025, the Court had already rejected one of
the objections taken by Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, learned advocate for the
respondent, with regard to the maintainability of the application before
this Court, on the ground that the same was premature. According to Mr.
Ghosh, the arbitration clause provided for settlement of the dispute
amicably. Only upon failure of such amicable settlement, could the
arbitration clause be invoked. This contention of Mr. Ghosh has already
been rejected by this Court with reasons. This Court found that there
were series of letters and communications between the parties with regard
to the disputes. The demand of the petitioner had not been addressed. In
a nutshell, the dispute which the petitioner raised through several letters
went unheeded, although the petitioner’s contention is that the
2
respondent had agreed for settlement of dispute by arbitration. Reference
was also made to the decision of Visa International Ltd. v. Continental
Resources (USA) Ltd.
2. However, the second contention of Mr. Ghosh is accepted by the Court.
This matter should have been filed in the Commercial Division.
Accordingly, AP/676/2022, must be registered once again in the
Commercial Division and the department is directed to make necessary
changes. Learned advocate on record for the petitioner is directed to
incorporate the corrections.
3. This Court proceeds to decide the matter on its own merits. The
arbitration clause contained in the management contract is not in dispute.
The issue with regard to the admissibility of the claims and whether the
claims are time barred, are to be decided by the learned arbitrator. Any
other objection on merits can be raised before the learned arbitrator.
4. The other contention of Mr. Ghosh that the notice invoking arbitration
dated July 18, 2022 is not in proper form, is also not accepted by the
Court. This Court is of the view that there does not need to be any
particular form in which arbitration has to be invoked, as long as there is
an intention to arbitrate. The notice indicates that the petitioner
requested the respondent to nominate a person to act as an arbitrator and
inform the petitioner about such nomination, within 30 days from receipt
of the notice. After expiry of the period of 30 days from receipt of the
notice, this application has been filed. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed
3
by appointing Mr. Satyam Mukherjee (Mob: 8017382322), learned
advocate as the learned arbitrator, to arbitrate upon disputes between the
parties. All questions raised by Mr. Ghosh shall be raised before the
learned arbitrator.
5. This order shall be treated as an order passed in the arbitration petition,
once it is registered and renumbered in the commercial division.
6. Let this matter appear on 7th April, 2025 as “To Be Mentioned”.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
S. Kumar / R.D. Barua
[ad_1]
Source link