OCD-11 & 14 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/756/2026 THG PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED VS OCTAVIUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED And AP-COM/795/2026 OCTAVIUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS THG PUBLISHING PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 25th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. R. K. Khanna, Adv. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Subhronil Ghosh, Adv. …for THG Publishing Private Limited Mr. D.N. Sharma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Altamash Alim, Adv. Mr. Sujit Banerjee, Adv. ..for Octavius Industries Limited The Court: Affidavit of service filed in AP-COM/795/2026 is taken on record. These two connected petitions under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been filed by Octavius Industries Limited and THG Publishing Private Limited, respectively, each seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of 2 the Deed of Sub-Lease dated 30th July, 2007 and the facility agreement entered into between the parties. Since both the petitions arise out of the same arbitration and relate to the same set of disputes, they are taken up together and disposed of by this composite order. Octavius Industries Limited (formerly Octavius Tea & Industries Limited) is the sub-lessor, and THG Publishing Private Limited (formerly Kasturi and Sons Ltd.) is the sub-lessee, in respect of commercial premises admeasuring approximately 6,927 square feet on the first floor of the building known as LMJ Chambers, situate at Premises No. 15C, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700001, together with four covered car parking spaces bearing Nos. H-1, H-2, H-3 and H-4, granted under a Deed of Sub- Lease dated 30th July, 2007 for an initial term of three years. A concurrent Facility Agreement dated 30th July, 2007 was also executed between the parties to regulate services and amenities. The sub-lease was renewed for two further successive terms of three years each, expiring on 30th July, 2016. Thereafter, THG Publishing Private Limited continued to occupy the demised premises under an interim arrangement at agreed occupation charges while seeking alternative accommodation. By a notice dated 1st November, 2017, THG Publishing Private Limited communicated its intention to vacate the premises, and eventually vacated and handed over possession on 31st January, 2018. Clause VI of the Deed of Sub-Lease dated 30th July, 2007 contains an arbitration agreement, providing that all disputes and differences between 3 the parties touching or concerning the said Deed, save and except any claim for possession of the demised premises, shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Disputes arose between the parties following vacation of the premises. THG Publishing Private Limited asserted claims aggregating to Rs.46,39,200/- towards refund of security deposit and cost of fixtures, air- conditioning and fire-safety installations, while Octavius Industries Limited asserted counter-claims aggregating to Rs.1,12,59,403/- along with interest, towards differential rent, unpaid occupation charges, electricity charges, municipal property taxes, water tax and repair charges for structural damage. THG Publishing Private Limited instituted C.S. No. 73 of 2019 before this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, seeking a money decree for Rs.26,41,113/- along with interest, without reference to the arbitration clause contained in the Deed of Sub-Lease. Octavius Industries Limited thereupon filed G.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for reference of the disputes to arbitration in terms of Clause VI of the Deed of Sub-Lease. By a judgment and order dated 4th February, 2026, this Court was pleased to allow G.A. No. 1 of 2025, holding that the dispute is to be referred to arbitration and granting liberty to the parties to approach the appropriate Bench of this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. The suit stood disposed of accordingly. 4 Thereafter, each of the parties took steps to invoke the arbitration agreement. Octavius Industries Limited, by notice dated 12th March, 2026 issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, called upon THG Publishing Private Limited to concur in the appointment of Sourav Mondal, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator. The said notice, sent to the registered address of THG Publishing Private Limited, was returned undelivered with the postal remark "Addressee Left". THG Publishing Private Limited, through its solicitors M/s Khanna & Co., by notice dated 27th July, 2026, proposed the name of Subhronil Ghosh, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator. On the same date, Octavius Industries Limited, through its advocate, replied in writing placing on record its earlier notice dated 12th March, 2026 and the postal return remark, and explicitly declined its consent to the appointment of Subhronil Ghosh, Advocate. In these circumstances, both parties have separately approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, on the ground that more than 30 days have elapsed since invocation under Section 21 and that the parties have failed to agree upon a common nominee. The existence of the arbitration agreement contained in Clause VI of the Deed of Sub-Lease dated 30th July, 2007 is not in dispute, and is further evident from the order dated 4th February, 2026 passed in G.A. No. 1 of 2025, whereby the subject matter of C.S. No. 73 of 2019 was referred to arbitration. 5 In both the petitions, the parties are agreeable to the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Senior Advocate (Mobile No. 9831205865) 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 petitions stand disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp.