OCD-13 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/467/2026 [Old No.AP/85/2026] RABINDRA BARMAN VS THE REGIONAL MANAGER,RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 27th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sayan Chattopadhyay, Adv. ..for the petitioner Mr. V. V. V. Sastry, Adv. Ms. Khushi Gupta, Adv. ..for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of a lease deed dated 12.08.2020 executed between the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties had entered into the lease deed dated 12.08.2020 whereby the respondent was granted the right to install, operate and maintain telecommunication infrastructure and allied equipment on the petitioner’s property situated within the District of Darjeeling. It is submitted that the lease deed was executed for a fixed tenure and contained an arbitration clause providing 2 resolution of disputes and differences arising out of or in connection with the said lease deed by arbitration. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputes and differences subsequently arose between the parties in relation to the performance of the obligations under the lease agreement. Accordingly, claims have arisen on account of alleged non-payment of rent and compensation as well as certain acts allegedly undertaken by the respondent in relation to the leased premises in contravention of the terms of the lease deed. It is submitted that the petitioner raised the grievances before the respondent and thereafter instituted proceedings before the competent Civil Court by filing OC Suit No.99/2022. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent had filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the learned Civil Court vide order dated 01.08.2024 allowed the said application and referred the parties to arbitration in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the lease deed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that notwithstanding the aforesaid order and subsequent communications issued on behalf of the petitioner seeking constitution of the arbitral tribunal, no effective steps have been taken by the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement. He further states that a notice under Section 21 of the Act had been issued on 17.07.2025 which was duly received by the respondent but the respondent failed to take any steps in furtherance of the said notice. 3 Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present application, contending that no valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been issued. It is submitted that the notice dated 17.07.2025 cannot be construed as a valid invocation of the arbitration agreement, as it does not validly invoke arbitration in respect of the claims sought to be pursued by the petitioner. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, as well as the materials placed on record. The existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties is not disputed by the learned Counsel for either party, nor is the arbitration clause contained therein in dispute. The disputes sought to be referred arise out of, and in connection with, the said agreement, and are, prima facie, covered by the arbitration clause contained therein. It is further evident that the arbitration agreement was invoked after the Civil Court had passed an order referring the parties to arbitration as the mechanism for resolution of their disputes. This Court is, prima facie, satisfied that appropriate notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking arbitration proceedings, was issued subsequent to the matter being referred to arbitration by order of the learned Civil Court dated 01.08.2024, passed in OC No.99/2022. In these circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the requirements for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stand fulfilled. 4 In view of the foregoing, this Court finds sufficient ground to allow the present petition. Accordingly, with the consent and agreement of both parties, this Court appoints Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay (Mob No. 8981772268), learned Advocate, as the Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference making the disclosure with Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed between the parties. A copy of 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 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.