Calcutta High Court
Prasanta Majumder vs Aparna Bhattacharjee And Ors on 7 April, 2026
OD-10
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP/9/2024
PRASANTA MAJUMDER
VS
APARNA BHATTACHARJEE AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date : 7th April, 2026.
Appearance
Mr. Anirban Roy, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Roy, Adv.
Mr. Debjit Basu, Adv.
...for the petitioner
Mr. Munshi Ashiq Elahi, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Mahato, Adv.
...for the respondents
1. The Court: The present application has been filed by the Petitioner
under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes
which have arisen between the parties.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner entered
into a Development Agreement dated 23.06.2013 with Respondent No.
1 and a subsequent Development Agreement dated 23.06.2014 with
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is contended that the said agreements
could not be effectively implemented on account of the failure of the
Respondents to hand over vacant and peaceful physical possession of
the subject property, as contemplated under Clause 1 of the
Development Agreement dated 23.06.2013.
2
3. It is further submitted that, in view of the disputes arising between
the parties, the Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a
notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 14.08.2023. However, no
effective steps were taken by the Respondents for constitution of the
Arbitral Tribunal, thereby necessitating the present application.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents does not dispute the
execution of the Development Agreements dated 23.06.2013 and
23.06.2014, nor the existence of an arbitration clause contained in
Clause 19 of the agreement dated 23.06.2013. However, it is
contended that the Petitioner failed to take steps in furtherance of the
development and did not discharge its contractual obligations,
including failure to construct the building within the stipulated period
of 24 months and failure to furnish a copy of the sanctioned building
plan.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions. At the stage of
Section 11 of the Act, the scope of examination is limited to a prima
facie determination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement
and whether disputes have arisen between the parties. The merits of
the rival claims and counterclaims are not required to be adjudicated
at this stage.
6. In the present case, the existence of the Development Agreements and
the arbitration clause contained therein is not in dispute. It is also
evident that disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to
performance of their respective obligations under the said agreements.
The invocation of arbitration by the Petitioner vide notice dated
3
14.08.2023 has also not been effectively acted upon by the
Respondents.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that a case for
appointment of an Arbitrator is made out.
8. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Mr.
Jayanta Sengupta, Advocate (Mob: 9231500518), as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties arising out of
the Development Agreements dated 23.06.2013 and 23.06.2014.
9. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix his remuneration in
accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, unless otherwise agreed by the parties.
10. The learned Arbitrator shall, prior to entering upon the
reference, make the necessary disclosure in terms of Section 12 of the
Act.
11. All questions, including those relating to limitation,
maintainability of claims, jurisdiction, and merits, are expressly kept
open to be decided by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.
12. The Petitioner shall communicate a copy of this order to the
learned Sole Arbitrator forthwith for necessary action.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands
disposed of.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
S. Mandi
AR(CR)
