Calcutta High Court
Vishwa Samudra Engineering Private … vs Indian Craft Village Trust (Icvt) And … on 8 April, 2026
ORDER OCD - 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/246/2026
VISHWA SAMUDRA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
VS
INDIAN CRAFT VILLAGE TRUST (ICVT) AND ORS.
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Date: April 08, 2026.
Appearance:-
Mr. Kishore Datta, Ld. AG.
Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv.
Mr. Nilavo Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.
...for petitioner.
Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sananda Ganguli, Adv.
Mr. S. Roy, Adv.
Mr. Subham Saha, Adv.
...for respondents.
The Court:- The petitioner has preferred the present petitioner under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia,
(i) seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent Nos.1 and
2 from invoking, encashing or in any manner acting upon the
Mobilization Advance Bank Guarantee bearing
No.0416825BG0B00791 dated 05.12.2015 for Rs.7,50,76,391/-;
(ii) seeking an order restraining the respondent No.1 from giving effect
to the Termination Notice dated 02.04.2026 (Memo No.
ICVT/Kolkata/2026/0024) and from taking any consequential steps
pursuant thereto;
2
(iii) seeking direction upon the respondents to remit the sum of
Rs.3,81,74,436/- allegedly encashed under Performance Bank
Guarantee No.0416825BG0B00790 dated 05.12.2025 and deposit
the same either with the petitioner or with the Registry of this Court
in an interest bearing fixed deposit during the pendency of the
arbitration proceedings.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the outset,
submits that the Performance Bank Guarantee has already been invoked and
encashed. He further states that he will encash Mobilization Bank Guarantee
only in terms of the contract.
In view of the aforesaid statement, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has already invoked the arbitration
clause in terms of the agreement.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the dispute being
referred to arbitration.
In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, this Court with
their consent, appoint Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Retired Judge of the
Supreme Court, as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties. All questions including those related to arbitrability, maintainability,
claims, limitations and merits of the disputes are left open to the learned
arbitrator to be decided in the arbitration proceedings. The appointment of the
learned arbitrator is strictly in consonance with Section 12 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3
In view of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, the present application
under Section 9 is directed to be placed before the learned arbitrator who shall
treat the same as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and consider the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. Nothing
in terms of the order shall influence the learned arbitrator to decide the
disputes between the parties.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
R. D. Barua
