Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 18 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Kanchan Konwer (widow) and her son, legal heirs of the late Shri Tapan Konwer.
  • Respondent: Tushar Kanti Jana, proprietor of M/s T.M. Construction.
  • Dispute: Development Agreement dated 03‑08‑2018 for a 258 sq ft portion of land at Premises No. 132/C, Keyatala Lane, P.S. Lake, South 24‑Parganas, Kolkata.
  • Agreement terms: 70:30 sharing of constructed area; Respondent claimed to have paid Rs 9,40,000 in cash to Late Tapan Konwer.
  • Development never proceeded due to pending Title Suit No. 233 of 2006 and lack of sanctioned building plan.
  • Late Tapan Konwer died on 28‑08‑2023; Petitioners succeeded to his estate.
  • Respondent issued notices (24‑03‑2025, 03‑05‑2025) demanding performance; Petitioners denied receipt of payment and cited pending litigation.
  • Arbitration: Respondent invoked arbitration clause (notice 03‑05‑2025) under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act; Court appointed Sole Arbitrator Mr Debasish Roy on 08‑07‑2025.
  • Petitioners did not participate in arbitral proceedings, citing financial constraints.
  • Arbitrator’s Award (29‑01‑2026):
  • Pay Rs 9,40,000 + 12% p.a. interest from 15‑01‑2019 until realization.
  • Pay Rs 39,23,200 + 12% p.a. interest from date of award until realization.
  • Pay Rs 1,16,062 + 6% p.a. interest from date of award until realization.
  • Petitioners filed Section 34 application seeking setting aside of the award, alleging patent illegality, non‑consideration of material facts, lack of payment evidence, limitation bar, and arbitrary quantum.
  • Respondent raised preliminary objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, asserting that disputes should be heard by the Commercial Court at Alipore, as the property lies within its territorial limits and the claim exceeds Rs 50 lakhs.

Final Outcome

  • The Court upheld the preliminary objection, finding it lacks territorial jurisdiction because the subject property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Alipore courts.
  • Consequently, the petition under Section 34 is dismissed as not maintainable.
  • The Court expressly refrained from examining the merits of the arbitral award, leaving all substantive issues for the appropriate forum.
  • Petitioners are free to approach the competent court having jurisdiction over the property.

Topics: Arbitration, Jurisdiction