OCD-26 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/727/2026 CRESSANDA RAILWAY SOLUTIONS LIMITED VS EASTERN RAILWAY BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 23rd September, 2026. Appearance:- Mr. Soumava Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Subhajit Seth, Adv. …for petitioner. Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Ms. S. Sarkar, Adv. …for respondent. The Court: - 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 that have arisen between the parties out of the Bid Agreement dated 6th September, 2023. The respondent had floated an e-tender inviting bids for provision of advertisement in EMU trains and provision of concierge services together with advertisement in Mail/Express and Premium trains operated with rakes whose primary maintenance is undertaken by Eastern Railway. The petitioner had submitted its bid pursuant to the said tender. Upon evaluation, the petitioner’s bid was accepted and the work order dated 17th May, 2023 was issued in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Bid Agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent authorities on 6th September, 2023. The tenure of the said 2 agreement was for a period of five years commencing from 17th July, 2023 and expiring on 16th July, 2028. The said agreement contains a valid and binding arbitration agreement under Clause 8 thereof, whereby disputes and/or differences arising between the parties in relation to the contract are required to be referred to arbitration. The arbitration clause, inter alia, contemplated reference of the disputes to a sole Arbitrator and provided for appointment of the Arbitrator by the competent Railway Authority. The Clause further provides that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules thereunder shall govern the proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioner that serious disputes and differences have arisen between the parties in relation to the performance, interpretation and enforcement of the said Bid Agreement. The petitioner alleges failure on part of the respondent authorities to provide timely allotment of rakes, failure to provide the requisite operational infrastructure and access contemplated under the agreement, delay in granting approval for Wifi installation, resulting in disruption of the petitioner’s performance of its contractual obligations and leading to imposition of additional license fee and liquidated damages, as well as consequential financial losses suffered by the petitioner . Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the Bid Agreement entered into between the parties. She does not dispute the arbitration clause as contained in the said agreement. Rather she submits that the railway had unilaterally appointed a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on 23rd June, 2026, though the said unilateral appointment would be illegal in teeth of the Judgment of the 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhadra International (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 7. In view of the same, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Hon’ble Justice Mr. Sanjib Banerjee as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen 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, maintainability, 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