OCD-20 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/369/2026 MS. KALPANA DUTTA VS MR. ARUNAVA ROY BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 5th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Divyang Chandiramani, Adv. Mr. Prithish Chandra, Adv. …for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears for the respondent. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes arising out of the Carrying and Forwarding Agent Agreement dated 12.10.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the parties had initially entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 21st day of December, 2022 through which the petitioner was appointed as a carrying and forwarding agent for the goods manufactured by the respondents throughout the North Bengal region. In terms of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner made a security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs with the respondent. Subsequently, at the respondent’s request, the petitioner further deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs 2 thereby taking the total security deposit to Rs.20 lakhs. Thereafter, the parties executed the Carrying and Forwarding Agent Agreement dated 12.10.2023 which superseded the earlier arrangement and contained an arbitration clause being Clause 32 thereof. Learned Counsel for the petitioner alleges that although the petitioner duly performed its obligations under the agreement, the respondent failed to refund the security deposit and further failed to make payment of commission, warehouse rent, office maintenance charges and other amounts to be due and payable under the agreement. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.29,28,105/- remained outstanding to the petitioner as on 31.01.2026. It appears from the records that the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 10.12.2025. By the said notice, the petitioner nominated Shri. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate as its nominee Arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint its nominee Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. Though the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the said notice and sought time on more than one occasion, no nomination was made on behalf of the respondent. This Court has considered the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The arbitration agreement contains a valid arbitration clause i.e., Clause 32 of the Carrying and Forwarding Agent Agreement dated 12.10.2023 and the existence of the same is not in dispute. The correspondence exchanged between the parties and the notice invoking 3 arbitration indicate that the disputes have arisen in connection with the said agreement. Despite invocation of the arbitration clause, the respondent has failed to take any steps for appointment of its nominee Arbitrator in accordance with the agreed procedure. 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. As per 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 (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.’ At this stage, the scope of examination under Section 11 of the Act is confined to the existence of a valid agreement containing a valid arbitration clause. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists between the parties and that disputes have arisen out of the same. The disputes raised by the petitioner are covered by the said agreement. In these circumstances, this Court appoints Ms. Sristi Barman Roy, Advocate (Mobile No. 9874231848) as the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent. 4 The nominee Arbitrator appointed by the petitioner, namely, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee and the nominee Arbitrator appointed by this Court shall, within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, appoint a Presiding Arbitrator. Upon such appointment, the Arbitral Tribunal shall stand constituted and proceed to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of and in connection with the carrying and forwarding agent agreement dated 12.10.2023. The learned Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference making the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned 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 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 Arbitral Tribunal, which shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar