Authority: High Court at Calcutta
Order Date: 14 October 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Sri Subhomoy Chakraborty and others (owners of a 3 cottah 1 chittack property at Premises No. 158, Dewangazi Road, Bally, Howrah), represented by advocates Jayanta Sengupta, Shebatee Datta, Satwik Beriwala.
- Respondents: Sri Rupesh Kumar Singh and others, operating as “Shree Ganesh Kali Construction”, represented by advocates Apurba Kumar Ghosh, Swarupa Seth.
- Development Agreement dated 15 August 2020, registered 1 December 2020, and a Development‑cum‑General Power of Attorney executed on the same date, transferred original title documents and vacant possession to the developers.
- Payment terms under Clause 8.1: Rs 1,00,000 on execution, Rs 4,00,000 on handing over vacant possession, Rs 5,00,000 on sanction of building plan. Only the first instalment was paid; Rs 4,00,000 remains unpaid.
- Allocation of constructed area under Clauses 9.2‑9.3: total 2,850 sq ft comprising several flats and a garage.
- Clause 5.6 required possession delivery within 36 months of plan sanction plus six‑month grace; plan has not been sanctioned.
- Late Sila Bose (owner) died 28 December 2020; her heirs (Respondents 3‑6) are co‑owners.
- Multiple correspondences (letters dated 29 Nov 2022, 15 Jan 2025, 10 Feb 2025, 27 Feb 2025) show dispute over payment, possession, and plan sanction. Developers alleged owners failed to hand over documents; owners denied.
- Petitioners invoked arbitration clause (Clause 26) by notice dated 9 June 2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nominating Mr Debapriyo Biswas as arbitrator. Respondents declined arbitration on 9 July 2025.
- Petition filed under Section 11 of the Act on 5 January 2026 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Final Outcome
- The Court found the arbitration agreement in the Development Agreement to be valid and subsisting.
- The notice dated 9 June 2025 satisfied Section 21 requirements; limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act was not exceeded (petition filed within three years).
- Limitation objections concerning the merits of the claim were held for the arbitrator to decide; the Court declined to adjudicate them.
- The Court appointed Mr Dipanjan Datta, Advocate (Mob. 9830468018), as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes.
- The arbitrator is directed to make disclosures under Section 12(1) of the Act, fix remuneration per the Fourth Schedule, and decide all issues of arbitrability, claim, counter‑claim, limitation, and jurisdiction.
- A copy of the order shall be communicated to the appointed arbitrator for action.
Topics: Arbitration, Real Estate Development, Court Order