OD-27 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/586/2026 [OLD NO. AP/106/2026] IMJAM HAQUE VS BIKAKSH VANDARI AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 29th July, 2026. Appearance Mr. Tapas Kr. Dey, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Ray, Adv. …for petitioner Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Sauradeep Dutta, Adv. Mr. Himadree Ghosh, Adv. …for respondents 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 the partnership deed dated 05.11.2020 executed between the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on 05.11.2020 a partnership agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of running a Nursing Home namely Arogya Nursing Home. In terms of the said partnership agreement, the profit and losses of the partnership business were agreed to be shared among the parties in the ratio of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. According to the petitioner, the said nursing home was initially operated by the respondent no. 1 as a proprietorship concern. 2 Subsequently, respondent no. 1 requested the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 to join the venture and convert the proprietorship concern into a partnership business. Pursuant thereto, the partnership agreement was executed between the parties and all the partners contributed capital and labour towards the operation and expansion of the nursing home and its ancillary business activities. The petitioner contends that during the course of the internal audit conducted in or about September, 2025 serious financial irregularities came to light. It is alleged that respondent no. 1 siphoned out substantial amounts from the accounts of the partnership business and utilized funds belonging to the partnership firm for personal purposes without the knowledge and consent of the other parties. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent no. 1 misused banking facilities and operated the accounts in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the partnership firm. Upon becoming aware of the irregularities the petitioner had called upon the respondent no. 1 to furnish proper accounts of the partnership business. Since no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming the petitioner lodged criminal complaint against the respondent no. 1. The records disclose that the petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 27.01.2026 calling upon the respondent no. 1 to render accounts and explain the alleged financial irregularities. The respondent no. 1 by a reply dated 02.02.2026 denied all the allegations contained in the said notice. The petitioner thereafter issued a notice dated 16.03.2026 under Section 21 of the said Act invoking the arbitration clause as contained in the partnership agreement. The petitioner claims entitlement to various monetary and other reliefs arising out of the alleged misappropriation and breach of the obligations under the Partnership Deed, including compensation, damages, 3 dues, remuneration and settlement of partnership account. The petitioner quantified his claims to Rs. 4,15,49,381/-. Both the parties submit that the partnership deed contains an arbitration clause being Clause no. 19 thereof. The said Clause provides disputes and differences between the parties shall be referred to arbitration and that the arbitral tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators, one nominee Arbitrator to be nominated by each side and the third Arbitrator to be nominated by the two nominee’s Arbitrator. Pursuant thereto the petitioner nominated Mr. Buddhadeb Ghosh, Advocate as his nominee Arbitrator. The respondent vide letter dated 08.04.2026 nominated Mr. Nilanjan Bhattacharya, Advocate as his nominee Arbitrator. It is a case of the petitioner that despite such nominations, the two nominee Arbitrators failed to appoint the third Arbitrator/Umpire as contemplated in the arbitration clause. Consequently, the proceedings could not be initiated. At this stage both the parties state that instead of a Tribunal comprising three Arbitrators, a sole Arbitrator can be appointed by this Court to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate (Mob: 8336835229), as the Sole 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 be entitled to fix his remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or as may be mutually agreed by the parties. 4 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. The Petitioner shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Sole Arbitrator forthwith for necessary action. With the aforesaid directions, the present application stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) S. Mandi AR(CR)