OCD-20 ORDER SHEET In The High Court at Calcutta Commercial Division Original Side AP-COM/666/2026 MS. SEEMA PANDEY -VS- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 31st August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Souma Subhra Ray, Adv. Mr. Akshat Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Susmita Saha, Adv. Ms. Neelam Kumari ,Adv. Ms. Swagata Santra, Adv. …for the petitioner Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Mr. Banani Bhattacharya, Adv. …for the respondents (UOI) The Court :- The petitioner have preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen out of the Letter of Award dated 23rd August, 2022 and Master License Agreement dated 7th May, 2024 relating to the Tender No. E-tender- SHM-11-PF-01 dated 25.06.2022 floated a Bid for the license for “Provision of Catering Services at General Minor Unit (GMU) number 11 of SHM (05/13) At PF-01 Station for SHM (earmarked category of Stall). Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the licence was for a period of five years commencing from 26th January, 2023 and ending on 25th January, 2028. The petitioner states that he had duly paid the license fee of Rs.10,71,000/- including GST and a security deposit of Rs.1,67,076/-, 2 pursuant to which the possession of the site was handed over to him. Petitioner relies on clause 19 of the Master License Agreement which contains the arbitral agreement and provide for resolution of disputes in terms of the General Condition of Contract for Railway works and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner contends that disputes and differences had arisen after communications were received by the petitioner from the respondents in January, 2025 and February, 2026 wherein the respondents had enhanced the license fee unilaterally and demanded the said fees and ultimately terminated the licence and forfeited the security deposits and further raised a demand of Rs.2,99,617/- . The rrespondents by the letter dated 2nd March, 2026 called upon the petitioner to furnish their particulars of the disputes and the waiver under Sections 12(5) and 31A(5) of the Act. The petitioner states that the particulars and waiver were duly furnished but the respondents have till date failed to appoint an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that arbitration agreement is not in dispute and that the present controversy arises out of the contractual relationship between the parties. He further submits that despite due invocation of the arbitration agreement and compliance with the requirements stipulated by the respondents, the appointment of an Arbitrator has still not been made. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that they do not dispute the existence of the General Conditions of the Contracts containing the arbitration clauses as well as the execution of the contractual terms between 3 the parties and the execution of the Master License Agreement between the parties. With the consent of the parties Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate (Mob. No. 8910642648) is appointed 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 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. 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.) S.A. AR(CR)