OCD- 9 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/657/2026 M/S HUDA CONSTRUCTIONS AND ORS VS LATIFUR RAHMAN AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 23rd September, 2026. Appearance:- Mr. Syed E. Huda, Adv. Sk. Aptabuddin, Adv. …for petitioners. The Court: - Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none papers for the respondents. 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 which have arisen between the parties out of the Development Agreement dated 2nd June, 2023. The petitioners are the developers under the said agreement. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the erstwhile owners/confirming parties. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the owners of premises No.17, Tiljala Road, Kolkata- 700039. The petitioners’ case is that under the development agreement, the respondents were required to, inter alia, obtain no-objection certificate from the existing tenants/occupiers within two months from the date of execution of the said development agreement. The petitioners claim to have paid an aggregate sum of Rs.32,00,000/- to the respondents between June and October, 2023. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite repeated requests, the requisite NOC was not obtained, thereby preventing the petitioners from proceedings with the development. A notice of demand dated 3rd January, 2025 was thereafter issued by the petitioners calling upon the respondents to obtain the NOC within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice or in default thereof refund the entire amount paid together with interest and damages. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said notice was not responded by the respondents. The petitioners further state that they had approached the learned District Judge, South 24 Paraganas at Alipore under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court vide order dated March 20, 2025 restrained the respondents from creating any third party interest in the property subject to the petitioners approaching appropriate authority for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal within 90 days. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners had duly invoked the arbitration proceedings by issuing notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act dated March 20, 2025. He further states that the said notice was not responded by the respondents and they took no steps for the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. In terms of Clause 14.1 of the development agreement which contains the arbitration clause, all the disputes and differences arising out of Development Agreement were to be referred to the sole Arbitrator. The existence of the arbitration agreement is prima facie evident from the record. 3 The disputes raised by the petitioners are directly out of Development Agreement and are plainly covered by Clause 14.1. The parties however have failed to mutually agree upon the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. In view of the failure of the parties to arrive at a consensus regarding appointment of a sole Arbitrator, the mandate under Section 11(6) stands attracted. Accordingly, the present petition succeeds. In view thereof, this Court appoints Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar Advocate (Mob No:-9836121325) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes 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