OCD-46 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/566/2026 STESALIT INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS M/S. PPT PUBS LLP AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 21st September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv. Mr. Sounak Mukherjee, Adv. …for the petitioner 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 an Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties out of the Lease Agreement dated 30th March, 2022 and the subsequent agreement dated 7th March, 2025 executed between the parties. The petitioner contends that the respondents were inducted as lessee in respect of the commercial premises situated at Stesalit Towers, 9th Floor, Plot No. E-2-3, Block EP-GP, Sector-V, Salt Lake, Kolkata – 700091, admeasuring about 2000 sq.ft. along with two car parking spaces on the ground floor of the said building. According to the petitioner, the 2 respondents committed persistent defaults in payment of rent, electricity and maintenance charges and continue to remain in occupation even after the expiry of the contractual terms. It is further contended that the cheques issued by the respondents towards discharge of their liability were dishonoured and substantial amounts remain outstanding. The agreement contains an arbitration clause providing for resolution of dispute through arbitration. The petitioner invoked the said arbitration clause by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act dated 6th May, 2026, nominating Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswar (Retired) as an Arbitrator and calling upon the respondents to appoint their Arbitrator. Despite receipt of the said notice on 7th May, 2026 and expiry of the period of 30 days, the respondents failed to appoint an Arbitrator causing the agreed appointment mechanism to fail. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as considered the materials placed on record. Prima facie the existence of a valid arbitration agreement is not in dispute, the disputes raised arise out of contractual relationship between the parties and are covered by the arbitration clause contained in the lease deed. Since the respondents fails to act in terms of the agreed procedure despite invocation of arbitration, this Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the said Act. It is now well settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to 3 a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. As per section 11(6A) of the Act “the Supreme Court or as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement.” Accordingly, at the stage of exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of this Act, this Court is only required to examine the existence of a valid arbitration agreement containing an arbitration clause. In view of the same, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Act stand fulfilled and that the disputes between the parties are fit to be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, Abhishek Baran Das, Advocate, (Mob. No. 9830721215) is appointed as the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondents. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswar (Retired), the nominee arbitrator already appointed by the petitioner shall continue to act as the other member of the tribunal. The two nominee arbitrators shall, after entering reference hold a meeting and appoint a third arbitrator who shall act as the presiding arbitrator of the Arbitral Tribunal. The learned arbitrators 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 arbitral tribunal shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be agreed between the parties. 4 A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned Arbitrators 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 arbitral tribunal, 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)