OCD-26 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/485/2026 SHALIMAR PELLET FEEDS LIMITED VS SMT MAMTA DEY AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 15th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral, Adv. Ms. Saswati Sengupta, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Sagarmoy Ghosh, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Vakalatnama filed by the respondents is taken on record. This is an application filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties under the dealership agreement 7th December, 2015. This is the second round of litigation between the parties. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being AP-COM/154/2026 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. 2 This Court vide order dated 1st April, 2026, disposed of the said application. The operative portion of the order reads as such: “Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that such dismissal shall not preclude the Petitioner from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law, including issuance of a fresh notice in terms of Section 21 and proceeding thereafter, if so advised.” While disposing of the earlier application, this Court held that the notice invoking arbitration dated 20th September, 2025 had not been duly served upon the respondents, who are the legal heirs of Late Samir Kumar Dey, the original contracting party to the dealership agreement dated 7th December, 2015. Accordingly, liberty was granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner issued fresh notice invoking arbitration dated 5th May, 2026. The petitioner has placed on record copies of the postal receipts and tracking record which prima facie indicate that such notice has been duly delivered to the respondents. Learned Counsel for the respondents appears and does not dispute the execution of the dealership agreement dated 7th December, 2015. It is also not disputed that the said dealership agreement contains an arbitration clause. It is now well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. In view of section 11(6A) of the Act ‘the Supreme Court or as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section 3 (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement’. Accordingly, the scope of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to the extent of examining the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and as well as the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that there exists a valid agreement between the parties and the said agreement contains the arbitration clause. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the requirements of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stands fulfilled and the present application deserves to be allowed. In view of the same, this Court appoints Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Advocate (Mob No.9830916210) as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter reference in due compliance with Section 12(5) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties. A copy this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator to take necessary steps. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and all 4 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.) bp.