OCD- 19 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/601/2026 AKHIL KUNDU AND ANR VS Dibashkar Saha BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th August, 2026. Appearance: Ms. Manali Ali, Adv. Ms. Sohini Choudhury, Adv. ..for the petitioners Ms. Shabana Hasin, Adv. ..for the respondent The Court: The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties, arising out of the Development Agreement dated 26th March, 2004. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Development Agreement was executed between the petitioners’ firm A.S. Construction as developer and one Smt. Luxmi Saha, the owner of the subject property. According to the petitioners, the respondent subsequently became the absolute owner of the property by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 27th November, 2013. It is alleged that the petitioners were ready and willing to perform their 2 obligations under the Development Agreement and the respondent failed to take necessary steps for conversion of the land from “Danga” to “Bastu” and sought to deal with and create third party rights in respect of the property, thereby giving rise to the disputes between the parties. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the Development Agreement, Clause 21 of the said Agreement contains a valid arbitration clause. The petitioners invoked the arbitral proceedings by issuing a notice under Section 21 dated 25th August, 2025, whereby the petitioners suggested the name of Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Senior Advocate, as the nominee Arbitrator. The respondent replied to the said notice and declined to accept the said nomination, refused to nominate an Arbitrator on his behalf and disputed the validity of the invocation notice. Consequently, the parties failed to constitute an Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the arbitration agreement. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the execution of the Development Agreement nor the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. Since the existence of the said Agreement as well as the arbitration clause contained therein is not in dispute, this Court is of the view that the present application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable. Although the Agreement between the parties contemplates constitution of a three-member Arbitral Tribunal, the parties have jointly agreed to depart from the said stipulation and have consented to the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising a sole, independent Arbitrator. 3 In view of such consensus between the parties, this Court proposes to appoint a sole, independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties under the said Agreement. In view of the same, this Court appoints Mr. Siddharta Lahiri, Advocate (Mob. No. 9830082839) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall, before entering upon the reference, make the disclosure required under Section 12(1) of the Act, 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 may be 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 arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp.