OCD-21 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/372/2026 MS. KALPANA DUTTA VS M/S. ADVANCE TECHNI AND ORS. 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 respondents. 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 between the parties arising out of the Super Distributor Agreement dated 04.05.2023 . It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents entered into a Super Distributor Agreement dated 04.05.2023 with the petitioner, through which the petitioner acted as a Super Distributor of the goods manufactured by a third party manufacturer being Heemankshi Bakers Pvt. Ltd., in the districts of Uttar Dinajpur, Dakshin Dinajpur and Malda in West Bengal. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner invested a sum of Rs.16 2 lakhs. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.08.2023 forming part of the said agreement, under which the petitioner invested a further sum of Rs. 5 lakhs taking the total investment to Rs. 21 lakhs. According to the petitioner, despite repeated demands and reminders, the respondents failed to honour their obligations under the agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding, including repayment of the amounts invested and other dues payable to the petitioner, giving rise to disputes between the parties. Clause 36 of the Super Distributor Agreement contains an arbitration clause, providing that the disputes between the parties shall be referred to arbitration and that in the absence of agreement on a sole Arbitrator, each party shall appoint its own Arbitrator, with the two Arbitrators so appointed nominating the Presiding Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner invoked the arbitral proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 10.12.2025 nominating Shri. Debjit Mukherjee, Advocate as its nominee Arbitrator and called upon the respondents to appoint their nominee Arbitrator. While the respondent replied disputing the petitioner’s claim, they neither appointed their nominee Arbitrator within the stipulated period nor thereafter. This Court has considered the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The existence of a valid arbitration agreement is not in dispute. The correspondences between the parties including the notice invoking arbitrator demonstrate that the disputes have arisen between them in connection with the said agreement and Memorandum of Understanding. 3 Notwithstanding the invocation of the arbitration clause, the respondents have failed to nominate their Arbitrator in accordance with the agreed procedure contained in the said agreement. 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.’ Accordingly, 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 respondents. The nominee Arbitrator appointed by the petitioner, namely, Mr. Debjit Mukherjee and the nominee Arbitrator appointed by this Court shall, within 4 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 between the parties. 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