OCD-6 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/656/2026 LITE BITE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED VS AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 21st August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Dwaipayan Basu Mallick, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kurian, Adv. Ms. Megha Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Gandhi, Adv. Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Rupak Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Uttam Kr. Mandal, Adv. Ms. Udita Mandal, Adv. ..for the respondent no.1 The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Sections 11, 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking substitution of the learned sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court vide order dated 30th April, 2026 in AP-COM/783/2025. The petitioner and the respondent had entered into a Concession Agreement dated 14th September, 2018, for operation of food and beverage outlets at the New Domestic Terminal Building, T1, Biju Patnaik International Airport, Bhubaneswar. 2 Disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner invoked arbitration by a notice dated 26th March, 2025. Upon the respondent’s failure to take steps thereon, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the said Act. Vide order dated 30th April, 2026, this Court allowed the said application and appointed Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Upon his appointment, the learned Arbitrator furnished his disclosure under Section 12(1) of the Act, disclosing that he had previously appeared for the respondent and its subsidiary in certain matters. The petitioner expressed reservations and declined to proceed before the said Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator thereafter recused himself by communication dated 15th June, 2026, and called upon the parties to take steps for his substitution. In view of the said recusal, the mandate of the learned Arbitrator stands terminated in terms of Section 14 of the Act. Substitution is consequently required under Section 15(2) of the Act, following the procedure applicable to the original appointment. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator in the facts and circumstances stated above. Accordingly, Mr. Soumya Roy Chowdhury, Advocate (Mobile No.9830693411) is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in substitution of Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate, to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Concession Agreement dated 14th September, 2018. 3 The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after making the disclosure required under 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 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. The objections and issues left open by the order dated 30th April, 2026 shall continue to remain open for consideration by the learned Arbitrator. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp./R.D.Barua