OCD-19 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/802/2026 THE BRAITHWAITE BURN AND JESSOP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED VS EASTERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Adv. Ms. Sharmistha Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Ranit Roy, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Sunil Singhania, Adv. Ms. Priti Jain, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties in connection with the contract awarded pursuant to E-tender bearing Tender No. 03-2025-26 dated 28th April, 2025 for the construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB) comprising Bow String Girder between Bahirkhand-Tarakeswar at km 34/4- 5 in Seoraphuli, Tarakeswar (SHE-TAK) line and other ancillary works in connection with elimination of LC no 23/A in Howrah Division under Eastern Railway. 2 It is the case of the petitioner that it was awarded the said contract pursuant to the bidding for a sum of Rs. 67,60,66,602.82/-. A Letter of Acceptance was issued on 26th September, 2025. The petitioner further states that the same is governed by the Standard General Conditions of Contract dated 9th January, 2025 together with tender documents and Instructions to Tenderers. The stipulated period for completion of the said work was 18 months. Disputes subsequently arose between the parties in relation to the progress of the work, alleged non-mobilisation and inadequate progress and the subsequent termination of the contract by the respondent. The petitioner alleges various hindrances by the respondent leading to the said termination. The respondent issued a notice dated 29th December, 2025 and 9th February, 2026 under Clause 62 of the GCC and thereafter terminated the contract on 11th February, 2026. The said notice was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.A. No. 3307 of 2026. By order dated 11th February, 2026, the notice was stayed by this Court. Subsequently, by order dated 7th April, 2026 the petitioner was directed to raise all the disputes before the Dispute Resolution Board and in default, was directed to refer the dispute to arbitration. Learned Counsel for the parties do not dispute the execution of the said contract nor do they dispute the GCC Clause containing the arbitral provision. The parties consent to appointment of a sole Arbitrator although the said provision contemplates reference of the disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal. 3 With the consent of the parties, a sole Arbitrator is appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Accordingly, this Court appoints Hon’ble Justice Sujoy Paul (Retired) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising 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.) R.Bhar