OCD- 13 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/331/2026 APARNA ACHARYYA VS SUSMITA PAUL AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral, Adv. Ms. Saswati Sengupta, Adv. …for petitioner. Ms. Torsa Min Bahar, Adv. …for respondent No.1. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Ghazala Firdous, Adv. SK. Saidullah, Adv. Md. Arsalan, Adv. Zannat Haque, Adv. …for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The Court: - Affidavit of service is taken on record. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitral tribunal to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties in terms of the partnership deed dated 18th May 2014. 2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, the respondents and one Late Suvasri Nandan jointly entered into the partnership deed dated 18th May 2014 for carrying on the business of running a school,namely, “Emile School with Creche”. It is further submitted that under the terms of the partnership deed, the partnership was agreed to commence with effect from 01.04.2014 and to continue till 2035. The day to day affairs and management of the partnership business were entrusted to the respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that one of the partners namely Suvasri Nandan passed away on 01.05.2021. However, despite the demise of the said partner, no steps were taken by the remaining partners for reconstitution of the partnership firm. It is alleged that thereafter the affairs of the partnership business were conducted unilaterally without the consent and involvement of the other partners. The petitioner has alleged various financial irregularities and mismanagement in the affairs of the partnership firm including embezzlement of the funds of the firm, improper maintenance of books of accounts and exclusion of the petitioner from the management and functioning of the partnership firm. It is further contended by the petitioner that he had invoked the arbitration clause contained in the partnership deed by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 17.02.2026 proposing the name of a sole arbitrator. The said notice was admittedly received by all the respondents. The respondent No.1 by reply dated 2nd March 2026 agreed to the reference of the dispute to arbitration, though 3 objected to the name of the sole arbitrator suggested by the petitioner. Since no consensus could be arrived at between the parties regarding appointment of the arbitrator, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 does not dispute the partnership deed nor the arbitration clause contained therein. The same is also the position with respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who do not dispute the partnership deed as well as the arbitration clause contained therein. The parties consent to the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the said partnership deed. In view thereof, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Advocate (Mob No:-9836337012) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. It is made clear that the parties have consented to the appointment of a learned sole arbitrator instead of an arbitral tribunal consisting of three members as contemplated in the partnership deed. 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 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 to the learned Sole Arbitrator to take necessary steps. 4 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. D. Barua