Authority: Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division
Order Date: 30 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner – M/s Desire Agro Resorts Development Ltd (private real‑estate developer); Respondent No. 1 – M/s Ashiana Vinimay Pvt Ltd (adjacent landowner); Respondent No. 2 – sister/associate concern of Respondent 1 (unnamed).
- Dispute stems from a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 30 Nov 2009 concerning demarcation of lands in Mouza‑Vasa and Uttar Kajir Hat, South 24 Parganas, and the construction of a 40‑50 ft metalled road (Schedule E) for common access.
- Petitioner purchased 17.06 bighas and agreed to buy additional 350 bighas; Respondent 1 bought adjacent land. Petitioner later sold certain plots to Respondent 2 under four registered sale deeds, with the MOU’s terms incorporated by reference.
- Respondent 1 failed to construct the road and allegedly attempted to encroach on Schedule E land. Petitioner obtained an interim injunction on 16 Aug 2024 restraining further encumbrance and requiring initiation of arbitration within 90 days.
- Petitioner served a Section 21 notice on 12 Nov 2024 invoking Clause 9 of the MOU and seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator; Respondents did not respond, and one notice was returned “dead”.
- Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AP‑COM 203 of 2025) seeking appointment of a fit‑and‑proper arbitrator.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that Clause 9, which states that disputes “may be referred to arbitration” after failed mutual settlement, does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Act.
- Consequently, the petition is non‑maintainable; the Court dismissed the application for appointment of an arbitrator.
- The Court declined to consider the limitation defence or Respondent 2’s alleged inclusion, as the primary issue of a valid arbitration agreement was resolved.
Topics: Arbitration, Court Judgment, Real Estate Dispute