Greenline Marketing Private Limited vs Jyote Motors Bengal Pvt Ltd on 16 January, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Greenline Marketing Private Limited vs Jyote Motors Bengal Pvt Ltd on 16 January, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

ODC-17
                    IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                              ORIGINAL SIDE

                           AP-COM/1095/2024

               GREENLINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED
                              VS
                  JYOTE MOTORS BENGAL PVT LTD

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date : 16th January, 2025
                                                                     Appearance:
                                                           Mr. Isham Saha, Adv.
                                                      Ms. Debjani Sengupta, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Rajib Mullick, Adv.
                                                        Ms. Ayantika Saha, Adv.
                                                                  ...for petitioner.

                                                  Ms. Shuvanil Chakraborty, Adv.
                                                                ...for respondent.

The Court:- This is an application for appointment of a learned

Arbitrator in terms of clause 20 of the service agreement dated May 1, 2018

entered between the petitioner and the respondent. According to the service

agreement, the respondent was required to discharge certain obligations.

The petitioner also relies on a communication which is annexure C at page

53, indicating that the petitioner was substituted as the service provider in

place of Urvee Investment Private Limited, at the request of the respondent

with effect from November 1, 2023. The service agreement was terminated

on July 20, 2024 on the ground that the main lease agreement had been

terminated by the owners of the property. The respondent was asked not to

use the equipments belonging to the petitioner as the services of the

respondent would no longer be required by the petitioner. The respondent

allegedly refused to pay heed to such request and the arbitration clause was

invoked by a notice dated August 20, 2024.

2

Mr. Chakraborty submits that the respondent continues to occupy the

leased premises. The owners continued to accept rent and as such the

question of not working under the service agreement did not arise. The

petitioner cannot terminate the service agreement. In any event, this Court

finds existence of an arbitration clause. This Court finds the notice

terminating the service agreement. This Court also finds that a notice

invoking arbitration has been issued. The points raised by the respective

parties are kept open, including the point of arbitrability of the disputes in

question.

This Court finds that in terms of the first provision of the clause, a

sole arbitrator can be appointed. The parties agree that the dispute may be

referred to a sole arbitrator. Under such circumstances, the application is

disposed of by appointing Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Advocate as a sole

arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute. 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.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

SK.