OCD-16 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/712/2026 PUTUL CHAKRABORTY VS GANESH SINGH BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 28th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty, Adv. .for the petitioner Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Sounak Mandal, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Halder, Adv. ..for the respondent The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties in connection with a Development Agreement dated 11th December, 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that she was the owner of Premises being No.43/6, Jheel Road, Police Station-Garfa (formerly Kasba), Kolkata 700031. The respondent is a developer carrying on business in the name and style of “Swapno”. The respondent had approached the petitioner for development of the said premises and the parties had entered into the 2 development agreement dated 11thDecember, 2019. Under the said development agreement, the petitioner being the owner was to receive 33% of the sanctioned Floor Area Ration (FAR) in the proposed building, comprising of one 2 BHK flat on the ground floor, North East side and one 2 BHK flat on the first floor, North-East side. The respondent was to complete the said project within a period of 24 months from the execution of the development agreement. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to complete the said project within the stipulated time period. Thereafter, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 17th September, 2023, in terms of the payment schedule as mentioned in the said Memorandum of Understanding out of the total consideration amount of Rs. 55,50,000/- which sum was inclusive of the non-adjustable/non- refundable amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- only was paid to the petitioner in deffernt tranches. The last payment was made on 5thDecember, 2023, leaving a substantial balance to be paid by the respondent. The principal dispute between the parties, according to the petitioner, arose when the petitioner learnt, in and around February, 2025 that the respondent had already executed a deed of conveyance dated 6th October, 2023 in favour of one Sri Ashim Sarkar and Smt. Sabita Sarkar in respect of the ground floor flat forming the part of the petitioner’s allocation. The petitioner sought the balance amount due from the respondent by issuing notices dated 6th January, 2024, 25th January, 2024 and 10th August, 2024 calling upon the respondent to make the payment of the amounts allegedly due to the petitioner. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in terms of Clause 13.1 of the Development Agreement, the dispute can be adjudicated by a Sole Arbitrator. He states that in terms of the Arbitration Agreement, he had issued a notice under Section 21 dated 29th May, 2026 thereby invoking arbitration proceedings against the respondent. The said notice was duly replied to by the respondent vide reply dated 15th June, 2026, whereby the respondent declined to accord concurrence to the appointment of an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is barred by limitation since the parties had entered into the Development Agreement in the year 2019. He further states that the subsequent Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties had rendered the Development Agreement otiose. He further states that the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties dated 17th September, 2023 does not contain any arbitration clause. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and has examined the documents on record. The existence of the Development Agreement dated 11thDecember, 2019 and the arbitration clause contained in Clause 13.1 thereof are not in dispute. The petitioner has duly invoked the arbitration proceedings by issuing a notice dated 29th May, 2026, which was admittedly received by the respondent. The respondent instead of agreeing to the nomination made by the petitioner, had expressly declined to do so. The arbitration clause contemplates that in the event the parties agree, the dispute may be referred to a Sole Arbitrator. 4 In the absence of such agreement, the said Clause provides for constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. At this stage, learned Counsel for the parties agree to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Advocate (Mobile No. 9830916210) as the learned 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 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 either of the parties 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.