Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 34743 (CAL)

HIND CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S. ADVANCE COOLING TECHNOLOGY AND ORS.

AP/25/2026 · 2026-08-04

Gaurang Kanth

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

ORDER OD - 9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE AP/25/2026 HIND CERAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S. ADVANCE COOLING TECHNOLOGY AND ORS BEFORE HON'BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date: August 04, 2026. Appearance:- Mr. S.K. Singhi, Adv. Mr. Ayant Shaw, Adv. Ms. J. Jain, Adv. …for petitioner. 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 that have arisen between the parties in terms of the Lease Agreement dated 13th September, 2022 entered into between the parties. The predecessor Bench of this Court has already opined that the respondents failed to meet their contractual obligations and defaulted in payment of the monthly lease rental amount since 17th January, 2023. According to the petitioner, the outstanding dues, along with interest, amounted to Rs. 3,69,850/-. The petitioner duly invoked arbitration by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act, dated 17th September, 2024. Respondent No. 1 disagreed with the petitioner's nomination and declined to act in terms of 2 the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the petitioner issued a fresh notice invoking arbitration on 22nd September, 2025. The objection raised by Respondent No. 4 was duly recorded, and it was observed that the same could be decided by the learned arbitrator. Since the matter was listed on the Non-Commercial Side, a final order regarding the nomination of the arbitrator could not be passed. In view of the observations and grounds recorded by the predecessor Bench, this Court concurs that the disputes sought to be referred arise out of the Lease Agreement dated 13th September, 2022, and are covered by the arbitration clause contained therein. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the present case is a fit one for the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. This Court, therefore, appoints Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee, Advocate (Mob: 7980510989), as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties arising out of the Lease Agreement dated 13th September, 2022. 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 this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator to take necessary steps. 3 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. D. Barua