Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division

Order Date: 09.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petition (AP‑COM 362 of 2026) filed by Uma Devi Kejriwal against Rakesh Chowdhury and an additional respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from the Deed of Partnership dated 01.07.2024 of the partnership firm M/s. CRISPR Biopharma Inc.
  • Original partnership deed dated 03.03.2022; on 01.07.2024, following the death of partner Mrs. Mitali Ghosh Mazumdar, respondent No.1 admitted the legal heir (respondent No.2) as partner, inducted the petitioner as incoming partner, and retired Sita Kejriwal. The new deed allocated one‑third share each to petitioner, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2.
  • Clause 25 of the deed contains an arbitration clause requiring each partner to appoint an arbitrator, whose arbitrators would appoint an umpire; the award to be final and binding.
  • Petitioner executed a Power of Attorney on 19.07.2024 in favour of her son, Vivekanand Kejriwal, to act on her behalf. Subsequent correspondence concerned access to books, ledgers, the original 2022 deed, filing of Income Tax Returns for FY 2025‑26, change of registered office, and a loan from ICICI Bank – all alleged to be done without her consent, breaching Clauses 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the 01.07.2024 deed.
  • On 20.03.2026, petitioner served a notice under Section 21 of the Act, nominating Mrs. Karabi Roy (Advocate, High Court at Calcutta) as her arbitrator; notice dispatched by Speed Post on 21.03.2026, received by respondent No.1 on 24.03.2026 and respondent No.2 on 23.03.2026.
  • Respondents replied on 30.03.2026, denying the allegations and claiming the 01.07.2024 deed was fabricated, with signatures of petitioner and retiring partner allegedly mismatched. They also instituted Title Suit No. 807 of 2026 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta, challenging the deed.
  • Respondents did not nominate arbitrators, leading to the present Section 11 petition.
  • Petitioner’s counsel argued that the arbitration clause is valid, service of notice satisfied Section 21, and the pendency of the civil suit does not bar appointment under Section 11(6). Cited Supreme Court decisions in The Agri Horticultural Society of India v. Enkon Private Limited and SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning.
  • Respondents’ counsel contended the petition is premature because the deed’s genuineness is under dispute in Title Suit No. 802 of 2026 (filed by Crispr Biopharma Inc. and respondent No.1) and alleged fraud vitiates the arbitration agreement, invoking Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee (AIR 2026 SC 802) which treats such fraud as non‑arbitrable at the referral stage.
  • The Court examined the affidavits and distinguished the present case from Rajia Begum, noting that respondents themselves signed the deed and only dispute the petitioner’s and Sita Kejriwal’s signatures; the alleged fraud does not permeate the arbitration clause itself.
  • The Court held that the prima facie existence of the arbitration agreement is satisfied and that disputed factual issues should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal, not examined at the Section 11 stage.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is allowed.
  • Mr. Sourav Sengupta, Advocate (Mob. 9051341923), is appointed as the nominee arbitrator on behalf of the respondents.
  • Mrs. Karabi Roy remains the petitioner’s nominee arbitrator.
  • Both arbitrators are directed to jointly appoint a Presiding Arbitrator in accordance with the Act for constituting the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the Deed of Partnership dated 01.07.2024.
  • The arbitrators must make disclosures under Section 12(1) and comply with Section 12(5).
  • Their remuneration shall be fixed as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed between the parties.
  • The Court expressly refrains from expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, the genuineness of signatures, or the validity of the deed; all such matters are left to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Topics: Arbitration, Partnership Dispute