Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: July 30, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – GTL Infrastructure Limited (GIL); Respondents – Sambhu Naskar & Anr.
  • Background: A lease deed dated November 2, 2008 was executed between GIL and the respondents for the installation of a mobile phone tower. Clause 15 of the deed provided that any dispute would be referred to a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, with the arbitration to be held at Pune.
  • Dispute: GIL sought to upgrade the tower technology; respondents allegedly barred GIL from accessing the premises. An arbitrator, not appointed under Section 11 of the Act nor named in the agreement, conducted arbitration in Kolkata (venue changed because GIL did not pay arbitrator’s fees or conveyance). No Section 21 notice was issued by either party to refer the dispute to arbitration.
  • Arbitration Proceedings: The self‑styled arbitrator issued a notice to GIL, heard the matter, and on February 22, 2022 rejected GIL’s Section 16 application challenging the arbitrator’s jurisdiction without providing reasons. The arbitrator then issued an award on July 29, 2022.
  • Challenge: GIL filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, contesting the award on the ground of improper appointment and lack of jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, South 24 Parganas, Alipore, dismissed the challenge, focusing only on the seat of arbitration.
  • Appeal: GIL appealed the August 12, 2025 order (the judgment of the Trial Judge) under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. An application for condonation of a 16‑day delay (IA No.: CAN 2 of 2025) was filed, citing the legal officer’s accident. The court accepted the explanation and condoned the delay.
  • Other Applications: IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 sought a stay of the impugned judgment; it was disposed of without any order as to costs.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the arbitrator was not validly appointed because the parties did not name an arbitrator in Clause 15 and no Section 21 notice was served; therefore, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction under Section 11.
  • The rejection order dated February 22, 2022 was declared a nullity for lacking reasons.
  • The award dated July 29, 2022 was declared a nullity and set aside.
  • Consequently, the order dated August 12, 2025 (which had upheld the award) was also set aside.
  • The parties were directed that they are at liberty to pursue any remedies available under Clause 15 of the lease deed dated November 2 2008.
  • Both IA No.: CAN 1 of 2025 and IA No.: CAN 2 of 2025 were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Topics: Arbitration, Court Judgment