OCD-13 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/75/2026 PRASENJIT CHATTERJEE AND M/S TARUN KANTI CHAUDHURY JV VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 29th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Priyankar Saha, Adv. Mr. Hemant Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Nand Gopal Khaitan, Adv. Mr. Anindya Basu, Adv. Mr. Anujit Mukherjee, Adv. …for the State The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties which have arisen out of the contract in respect of the work of Widening and Strengthening of Existing Intermediate Lane carriageway to two Lane carriageway in N.H from 0.00 Kmp to 18.00 Kmp at Bishnupur-Kotulpur-Arambagh Road (SH-02) in the District of Bankura, under C.R.F. (Job No. CRF-W.B.-2009-2010-34). The respondent floated a Notice Inviting Tender being Tender No. 09 of 2011-2012 of S.E., South Western Circle, P.W.D. for execution of the 2 aforesaid work. The bids submitted by the petitioner, a joint venture firm of government contractors, was accepted by the respondent and a Letter of Acceptance was issued on 30.05.2011 followed by a formal work order dated 16.06.2011. Pursuant thereto, the parties entered into a contract incorporating the General Conditions of Contract. The grievance of the petitioner is that although it commenced execution of the work and executed a substantial portion of work thereof, the respondents failed to discharge their reciprocal contractual obligations. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to hand over a hindrance free site as stipulated under the agreement, thereby causing delay in execution of the work. It is alleged that such default resulted in serious financial hardship to the petitioner and compelled it to incur additional expenditure during execution of the work. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that various communications were exchanged between the parties. A demand notice dated 27.09.2013 was also issued claiming the outstanding dues along with interest. Clause 25.3 of the agreement contains an arbitration clause. The clause contemplates appointment of a sole Arbitrator by mutual consent and in the absence of such consensus, constitution of a three member Arbitral Tribunal by nomination of one Arbitrator by each party with the Presiding Arbitrator to be appointed by the two nominated Arbitrators or in default thereof by the Council, Indian Roads Congress. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 31.07.2015. An Arbitrator was thereafter 3 appointed and an award came to be published on 28.12.2018. Under the said award, only Claim No.2 was allowed while the remaining claims were rejected. The petitioner challenged the award under Section 34 of the Act before the competent Court. By judgment dated 29.04.2022, the Commercial Court at Asansol set aside the arbitral award in respect of all rejected claims on the ground that the award was unreasoned. The award in respect of Claim No.2 which had already been satisfied was left undisturbed and attained finality. The respondent states that Claim No.2 has already been satisfied in terms of the award. The said judgment dated 29.04.2022 was challenged by the respondent which was dismissed for default and no steps were taken by the respondent for restoration of the same. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court by filing an application under Section 11 of the Act. The said application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh application after issuing a fresh notice invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Act. Pursuant thereto and by way of abundant caution, the petitioner issued a fresh notice dated 12.12.2025 under Section 21 of the Act which was duly served upon the respondent. Despite receipt of the notice, no steps were taken by the respondent for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he does not dispute the agreement or the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement namely Clause 25.3. He further submits that he has no objection to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. 4 With the consent of the parties, Hon’ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee (Retired), is appointed as the learned 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 the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties. 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