OCD-21 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/703/2026 M/S BESCO LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 23rd September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Adv. (VC) Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Garima Parth, Adv. …for the petitioner Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Ms. Garima Raijada, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of the disputes and differences arising out of the Private Siding Agreement dated 25th September, 2019 between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner was granted a right to occupy the Railway premises for the purpose of opening a Railway siding at Baruipur under a Land License Agreement dated 6th February, 2018. Subsequently, a Private Siding Agreement dated 25th September, 2019 was executed between the President of India acting through the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, 2 Sealdah and the petitioner. Clause 34 of the said agreement provides for arbitration. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have raised demands for payment of maintenance and inspection charges for the private siding at Baruipur for the period between 2017-2018 to 2021-2022, amounting to a sum of Rs. 1,18,34,427/- as well as demands for OHE maintenance charges. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of the Private Siding Agreement dated 25.09.2019 which contains an arbitration clause under Clause 34, the petitioner had issued a valid arbitration notice dated 16.07.2026 invoking the arbitration proceedings in terms of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the execution of the agreement between the parties or the existence of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 25.09.2019. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the allegations made by the petitioner are not admitted, however, he does not dispute the agreement provides for arbitration in the event of any dispute or differences arising out of or in connection with the agreement dated 25.09.2019. Since the said agreement is not in dispute and contains a valid arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 11 of the said Act. With the consent of the parties, Mr. Ranjan Deb, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 9830162035) is appointed as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the Private Siding Agreement dated 25th September, 2019. 3 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.) R.Bhar