Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 14 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition filed by Barasat Management Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against Respondent No. 1, Chanchal Kumar Mandal, concerning alleged arrears of common area maintenance (CAM) charges.
  • The dispute arises from the “Fortune Township” project at 49/2 Jessore Road (East), Kazipara, Barasat, Kolkata‑700125, comprising approximately 68,303.55 sq m (≈ 735,000 sq ft), 21 towers, a clubhouse and 650 residential flats, with common areas exceeding 6 lakh sq ft.
  • Respondent No. 1 purchased Flat G‑101 from the pro‑forma respondent (developer) under a registered deed of conveyance dated 04‑08‑2011, which incorporated by reference the deed of declaration dated 24‑04‑2010.
  • Clause 34 of the deed of declaration created Barasat Management as the “Maintenance Body” for upkeep of common areas. A separate Maintenance and Management Agreement dated 08‑03‑2017 engaged the Petitioner to provide maintenance services from 01‑04‑2017.
  • Maintenance charges were fixed at Rs 1.50 per sq ft, revised to Rs 2.00 per sq ft effective 01‑11‑2017 and to Rs 2.50 per sq ft effective 01‑04‑2022. Bills for the period 01‑04‑2024 to 31‑03‑2026 totalled Rs 1,14,590/‑; payments of Rs 31,115/‑ were made, leaving a principal outstanding of Rs 83,475/‑. Interest at 18 % per annum amounted to Rs 17,285/‑, bringing the total claim as of 31‑03‑2026 to Rs 1,00,760/‑, exclusive of interim interest and interest on award.
  • The arbitration clause in the deed of conveyance (and incorporated deed of declaration) provides that all disputes “shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of Mr Naresh Balodia … or a person to be nominated …”.
  • Petitioner issued a Section 21 notice on 08‑04‑2026 nominating Mr Abirlal Chakraborty as sole arbitrator. Respondent No. 1 objected on 23‑04‑2026, treating the nomination as unilateral and raising a limitation objection.
  • Respondent argued that the Petitioner, not being a signatory to the deed of conveyance or declaration, is not a party to the arbitration agreement and that the 2017 agreement contains a separate arbitration clause.
  • Petitioner contended that under Section 2(1)(h) and Section 7, a non‑signatory can be a “veritable party” if its conduct shows consent, citing Supreme Court precedents (Ajay Madhusudan Patel 2025, Cox & Kings 2024, BCL Secure Premises 2026).
  • The Court examined the statutory framework, emphasizing that under Section 11(6‑A) the referral court’s role is a prima‑facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, not a full factual trial.
  • The Court found a valid arbitration agreement exists in the deed of conveyance and that the dispute over CAM charges falls within its scope.
  • Considering the Petitioner’s role as the Maintenance Body, its engagement by the developer, the assignment of enforcement rights, and the respondent’s payment of charges to the Petitioner, the Court held the Petitioner is prima‑facie a veritable party.
  • The Court noted that questions of the Petitioner’s authority, the exact amount claimed, and limitation issues are factual matters to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16.

Final Outcome

  • The Court, satisfied on a prima‑facie basis that an arbitration agreement exists and that the Petitioner is a veritable party, appoints Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate (Mob. 8910642648), as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes.
  • The Sole Arbitrator shall make disclosures under Section 12(1) and determine remuneration per the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed.
  • All questions of arbitrability, maintainability, limitation, jurisdiction, claim and counter‑claim are left open to be urged before the Sole Arbitrator.
  • The order is communicated to the Sole Arbitrator, and the petition stands disposed.

Topics: Arbitration, Real Estate