OCD-17 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/457/2026 SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS BHARAT OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 15th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Shivam Bhimsaria, Adv. Ms. Akansha Singhania, Adv. Ms. Bhawna Tekriwal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Zeeshan Haque, Adv. Mr. Ajitesh Pandey, Adv. Mr. Zubeen Pandey, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: The petitioner has filed the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent and impartial sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties under and in connection with the registered Development Agreement dated 27th March, 2017. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is engaged in the business of construction and real estate development and had entered into the aforesaid Development Agreement with the respondents in respect of the development of the immovable property being Premises Nos. 3 and 4, Mahendra Roy Lane, P.S. Topsia, 2 Kolkata – 700046. It is submitted that pursuant to the execution of the said agreement, the petitioner incurred substantial expenditure amounting to approximately Rs.10,70,00,000/- towards implementation of the project. It is further submitted that by a letter dated 7th December, 2025, the respondents purported to terminate the Development Agreement and simultaneously forfeited the refundable security deposit of Rs.10,70,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the aforesaid deposit, the petitioner incurred considerable expenditure in connection with the proposed development by engaging architects and other professional consultants for preparation of the development scheme, securing amalgamation of the land parcels before the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, paying municipal taxes up to September, 2025 and taking effective steps for resolution of various litigations relating to the title of the property. According to the petitioner, disputes and differences arose upon the respondents terminating the Development Agreement and forfeiting the security deposit on the allegation that the petitioner had failed to obtain the requisite ULCRA clearance within ninety days from the date of execution of the agreement. It is the petitioner's contention that the termination is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms of the Development Agreement. It is further contended that time was never intended to be of the essence of the contract and, in any event, the stipulation regarding time stood waived by the conduct of the parties. It is also submitted that the requisite ULCRA clearance had, in fact, been obtained in the year 2019 with the knowledge 3 and acquiescence of the respondents. The petitioner further contends that the Development Agreement does not contain any provision authorising forfeiture of the refundable security deposit in the circumstances alleged by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a notice dated 7th May, 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of Article 22.1 of the Development Agreement. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Act before this Court, in which certain interim orders have already been passed. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submits that the respondents do not dispute the execution of the Development Agreement dated 27th March, 2017 or the existence of the arbitration agreement contained therein. He further submits that the respondents have no objection to the appointment of a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Hon’ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya (Retired), Mobile No. 9830929738 as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appointment of the learned sole Arbitrator shall be subject to compliance with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act. 4 A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned sole Arbitrator for necessary action. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and all other issues are left open to be urged before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar