OCD-34 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/758/2026 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY INDIA LIMITED VS KUNDAN KUMAR MISHRA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 23rd September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Ratul Das, Adv. Mr. Kamran Hussain, Adv. ..for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears for the respondent. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the contract bearing no.52NEU952C entered into between the parties for supply, installation, testing and commissioning of four elevators units at the respondent’s project at Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The petitioner states that the contractual work was completed and the elevator units were handed over to the respondent on 25th December, 2024. According to the petitioner, the respondent had failed to release the balance contractual amount. The respondent did not make payment despite petitioner’s repeated demands giving rise to the present dispute. It is further submitted that the petitioner issued a notice dated 19.05.2026, calling upon 2 the respondent to nominate a duly authorised senior managerial representative to participate in discussions for an amicable settlement of the disputes arising out of the aforesaid contract and simultaneously nominating Mr. Subhash Kumar, Manager-Sales, as the petitioner’s representative. The said notice was duly served upon the respondent on 22.05.2026. He further states that the arbitration proceedings shall take place in Kolkata in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the Conditions of Contract. The petitioner had invoked the pre-arbitral mechanism by issuing a notice dated 19th May, 2026, which was duly served upon the respondent on 22nd May, 2026. Upon failure of the said mechanism, the petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act, dated 9th June, 2026, seeking invocation of the arbitral proceedings in respect of the disputes between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent neither replied to the said notice nor took any steps for appointment of a sole Arbitrator in terms of the said agreement. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and has perused the materials placed on record. Clause 20 contains a valid and subsisting arbitration clause. The contractual pre- arbitration mechanism had also been invoked and had failed. The petitioner thereafter invoked the arbitration by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act, as contemplated under the Act and called upon the respondent to participate in the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent, despite receipt of the said notice, had neither nominated an Arbitrator nor taken any steps for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. The statutory 3 conditions for intervention under Section 11(6) therefore stand satisfied. The arbitration clause expressly provides that the arbitration proceedings shall take place in Kolkata and that the Courts in Kolkata shall have the jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms. Ankita Baid, Advocate (Mobile No. 9874266226) as the learned 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 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, 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.) bp.