OCD-19 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/683/2026 USHA MARTIN LIMITED VS CHHOTANAGPUR ROPE WORKS PRIVARTE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 24th August, 2026. Appearance: Ms. Labanyasree Sinha, Adv. Ms. Swagata Ghosh, Adv. ..for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties out of three Purchase Orders, namely, Purchase Order No. 1 bearing No. 4912000154 dated 17.08.2023, Purchase Order No. 2 bearing No. 4912000155 dated 17.08.2023, and Purchase Order No. 3 bearing No. 4912000156 dated 26.08.2023. The petitioner had supplied steel bobbins and raw materials to the respondent for carrying out fixing and winding operations. According to the petitioner, substantial quantities of material, including 55 steel bobbins, remained with the respondent and were neither utilised nor returned. Despite repeated reminders by the petitioner demanding payment of the 2 outstanding dues and return of the materials, none of its demands were fulfilled, giving rise to disputes between the parties. Clause 17 of the respective Purchase Orders contains an arbitration clause. The petitioner invoked the said arbitration agreement by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 16.06.2026, and appointed Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Advocate, as the sole Arbitrator. The respondent, vide its reply dated 13.07.2026, declined to accept the petitioner's nominee and, inter alia, contended that the invocation of the arbitration clause was premature for want of prior negotiation and non-compliance with the arbitration clause. The respondent counter-nominated Mr. Debapriya Gupta, Advocate. The existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute. The respondent's objections regarding compliance with the pre-arbitral negotiation mechanism, as well as the merits of the petitioner's claims, are matters that can appropriately be considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. Since the unilateral appointment mechanism contained in Clause 17 has been disputed, the Court is required to appoint an independent and impartial Arbitrator. Further, as the disputes arising out of the three Purchase Orders are interconnected and arise from the same course of dealings between the parties, a composite reference is permissible. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Advocate (Mobile No. 9163891670), as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 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. 3 The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix his 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.) bp.