OCD-14 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/572/2026 JOYRATH PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 31st August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Adv. Mr. Arnab Sardar, Adv. Mr. Sayan Ganguly, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Mukhopadhyay, Adv. ..for the respondent The Court: Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking termination of the mandate of the learned Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Advocate, and appointment of a substitute Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the Work Order No.WO32253225/171201000001 dated 1st December, 2017 and Supplementary Work Order No.WH32253225/180801000001 dated 1st August, 2018. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputes and differences had arisen regarding the aforesaid Word Orders. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 dated 22nd July, 2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 26th June, 2025 in AP/752/2022, this Court appointed Mr. Jayanta Sengupta, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The petitioner states that although the order of appointment was communicated to the learned Arbitrator belatedly on account of illness and subsequently the demise of the petitioner’s Director, the learned Arbitrator accepted the reference by a communication dated 15th May, 2026 and furnished his disclosure under Section 12 of the said Act and entered upon the reference. The first sitting was held on 10th June, 2026 and directions were issued for completion of pleadings. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that upon disclosure furnished under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it transpired that the learned Arbitrator had, on an earlier occasion, acted as counsel briefed by the Respondents' Advocate and had also appeared on behalf of the Respondents in another arbitral proceeding. It is submitted that such relationship falls squarely within the categories specified in the Fifth and Seventh Schedules to the said Act, and consequently renders the learned Arbitrator ineligible to act as such in terms of Section 12(5) read with the Seventh Schedule thereto, thereby attracting the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the said Act. 3 The Petitioner accordingly preferred the present petition at that stage, seeking termination of the mandate of the learned Arbitrator and consequential relief. Subsequently, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed on record a supplementary affidavit, thereby bringing on record a letter dated 11th August, 2026, whereby the learned Arbitrator has tendered his resignation from the office of Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the appointment of a substitute Arbitrator since the earlier Arbitrator has tendered his resignation. In view of the same, this Court appoints Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Advocate (Mobile No. 9831774954) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference making the disclosure with 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. 4 The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to proceed with the reference afresh. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp