Allowed

Subhra Ghosh v. Smt Maya Ghosh and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Feb 2021AP/76/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a development agreement, noting the respondents failed to respond to the Section 21 notice.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sabyasachi Chowdhury as sole arbitrator; sittings to be fixed by him; fees borne equally by parties.

Subhra Ghosh Vs Smt Maya Ghosh and Ors. — Arbitration | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

ORDER SHEET

¶2

AP 76 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

SUBHRA GHOSH

¶5

Versus

¶6

SMT MAYA GHOSH AND ORS.

¶7

BEFORE:

¶8

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE Date : 8^th February, 2021.

¶9

Appearance: Mr. Anirban Das, Adv. …for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv. …for the respondents.

¶11

The Court : This is an application under Section 11(6) of

¶12

the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner prays for appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties in relation to the development agreement dated January 3, 2006, that was executed by and between the petitioner and the predecessor-ininterest of the respondents. The subject agreement contains an arbitration clause being clause 21. The petitioner issued a notice dated July 29, 2019 addressed to the respondents, enumerating therein the disputes that have arisen between the parties, naming one Shri Dipankar Saha having his office at 10, Old Post Office Street, Kolkata, as her nominee arbitrator and calling upon the respondents either to agree upon Shri Saha as

¶13

the sole arbitrator or to name their nominee arbitrator as the second arbitrator. From the supplementary affidavit filed in

¶14

¶15

Court, it appears that the notice dated July 29, 2019 was received by all the addressees of such notice. However, I am told that there was no response to such notice. Accordingly, the present application has been filed.

¶16

On January 6, 2021 this Court had directed the petitioner to communicate to the respondents that the next date of hearing of this application would be January 18, 2021. It was recorded in the said order that in spite of communication of the order, if the respondents remained unrepresented, this application was likely to be dealt with appropriately in their absence. From the affidavit of service filed in Court today it appears that the order dated January 6, 2021 was duly delivered to the respondents. However, nobody appears for the respondents.

¶17

In view of the fact that there does not appear to be any dispute regarding the existence of an arbitration clause and that disputes have arisen between the parties and further that the respondents have not responded to the notice under Section 21 of the 1996 Act, this application is allowed.

¶18

Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate, Bar Library Club, High Court, Calcutta (98310 34562) is appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes that have arisen between the parties pertaining to the development agreement dated January 3, 2006. The sole arbitrator will hold the sittings at a place to be decided by him in consultation with the parties. The arbitrator will be free to fix his fees and to engage

¶19

¶20

secretarial staff for conducting the arbitration proceeding. The fees of the arbitrator as well as the remuneration of the secretarial staff shall be borne by the parties in equal shares. AP No.76 of 2020 is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶21

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

¶22

spal

Subhra Ghosh v. Smt Maya Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhra Ghosh v. Smt Maya Ghosh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Hooghly Mills Company Limited Vs Acumen J Marketing Private Limited

The Hooghly Mills Company Limited Vs Acumen J Marketing Private Limited

Hooghly Mills Projects Limited Vs Acumen J Marketing Private Limited

M/S Mangalam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Basab Dutta Vs the General Manager and 2 Others

Social Aid for the Rural Area (Sara) Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.