OCD-26 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/680/2026 Tirumani Flat Owners Association VS S AND IB Services Private Limited BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwalla, Adv. Mr. Swapnadwip Roy, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Aharnish Ghosh, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties out of the Work Order No. TIRU/DEC/SEC/01 dated 1st December, 2024. The petitioner is an association of flat owners of a building known as “Tirumani” situated at 23A, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata. The respondent is engaged in the business of providing security guards and security management services. Pursuant to the work order dated 2 01.12.2024, the respondent was engaged by the petitioner at the said premises. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent was required to deploy the requisite number of security guards and supervisors and to maintain the standard of security and services as stipulated in the work order. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to comply with the contractual obligations, including deployment of adequate and trained security personnel and maintaining security at the designated posts and ensuring proper shift management. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that despite repeated reminders, the respondent failed to rectify the deficiencies as pointed out by the petitioner. The petitioner consequently terminated the contract vide email dated 14.05.2025. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause contained in the said work order by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 27.07.2026. The said notice was not responded to by the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator. The work order as well as the clause providing for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Mr. Varun Kothari, Advocate, Bar Library Club (Mobile No. 8017933435) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties arising out of the work order dated 1st December, 2024. 3 The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after making the disclosure in terms of 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 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 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.) R.Bhar