Soumen Paul vs K.C. Associates And Ors on 10 March, 2025

Calcutta High Court

Soumen Paul vs K.C. Associates And Ors on 10 March, 2025

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

OCD -8
                                 ORDER SHEET

                             AP-COM/170/2025

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                           COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                                 SOUMEN PAUL

                                     VS

                        K.C. ASSOCIATES AND ORS.

  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
  Date: 10thMarch, 2025.

                                                                         Appearance:
                                                         Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                                 .... for the petitioner
                                                              Mr. Supratic Roy, Adv.
                                                              Mr. Shuvojit Roy, Adv.
                                                         ...for respondent nos. 1 to 4

The Court:1.This is an application for appointment of a learned

Arbitrator. The petitioner and the respondent No.5 are the land-owners and the

respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the developers. The dispute arises out of a

development agreement dated June 24, 2019. The development agreement

contains an arbitration clause which is quoted below :

“X – Miscellaneous :-

c) Disputes – Differences in opinion in relation to or arising out
during execution of the housing project under this agreement shall be
intimated by a registered letter/Notice and then to an arbitral
2

tribunal/arbitrator for resolving the disputes under this arbitration &
conciliation Act, 1996, with modification made from time to time. The
arbitral tribunal shall consist of one arbitrator who shall be an
Advocate, to be nominated by both the parties or their legal advisors.”

2. The petitioner invoked arbitration by notice dated January 20, 2025. The

respondent nos. 1 to 4 replied to the said notice and proposed mediation. The

petitioner is not willing to go for mediation and prays for adjudication by a

learned arbitrator. The petitioner alleges that the developers did not fulfill their

obligation. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 submit that there were disputes with

regard to handing over clear possession to the developers. The land owners

failed to hand over possession. Under such circumstances, all these issues

shall be decided by the learned arbitrator. This Court finds that the contract

period was for 36 months from the date of execution of the agreement on 24 th

June, 2019, which could be extended by further six months. The dispute in my

prima facie view is alive. It is alleged that nothing was done by the developers

within the afore-mentioned period. The arbitrability of the disputes and the

question of limitation are left open, to be decided by the learned arbitrator.

3. Under such circumstances, the application is disposed of by

appointing Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, learned Advocate, Bar Library Club as the sole

arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties. The respondents

shall be at liberty to raise all objections as may be available to them under the
3

laws. 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.)
TR/