Authority: Calcutta High Court (High Court at Calcutta)

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Leisure Country Club and Resorts Private Limited (developer); Respondents – Asim Kumar Ray and another individual.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (AP 406 of 2021) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of an Agreement for Sale dated 23 July 2014.
  • Agreement Details: Original plot B‑42 (≈5 cottahs 5 chittacks 15 sq ft.) at Mouza Dharsa Moktarpur, consideration Rs 42,50,000; Rs 23,00,000 paid at execution, balance in instalments. Clause 7 allowed 40 % deduction for service charges on refund; Clause 18 mandated arbitration.
  • Substitution: Parties substituted the plot with land at Mouza Jagadishpur (≈6 cottahs 6 chittacks 30 sq ft.), revised consideration Rs 43,31,250, fully paid by respondents up to November 2017.
  • Refund Dispute: Respondents sought refund after discovering the substituted plot lay in a government‑declared planning area. Petitioner offered refund with 40 % deduction; refunded Rs 19,90,250 between 9 Nov 2018 and 8 June 2020. An anticipatory bail deposit of Rs 5,00,000 was also made.
  • Consumer Forum: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North 24 Parganas, Barasat, issued a final order on 22 April 2025 directing the petitioner to refund Rs 18,41,000 with 9 % interest, plus Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 5,000 costs. Petitioner's review was rejected on 15 September 2025; execution proceedings (DC 303/EA/30/2025) remain pending.
  • Criminal Proceedings: Respondents filed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC on 6 February 2020 (Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 47 of 2020) alleging offences under IPC §§ 418, 420, 467, 468 and 120B. The case is pending trial.
  • Legal Submissions: Petitioner's counsel argued the arbitration clause remains enforceable despite the consumer order and criminal case; respondents contended the dispute is a consumer matter already adjudicated and therefore non‑arbitrable.
  • Judicial Precedents Cited: Vidya Drolia, Interplay (2024), Krish Spinning (2024), Emaar MGF Land, M. Hemalatha Devi, Citicorp (2025), T.K.A. Padmanabhan, Cicily Kallarackal, Harcharan Dass Gupta, among others, to delineate the limited scope of Section 11(6A) and the principle of consumer’s exclusive election of the statutory forum.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that an arbitration agreement exists and was validly invoked; the application was filed within the three‑year limitation period.
  • The parties’ failure to agree on an arbitrator necessitated appointment under Section 11(6).
  • Appointment: Mr. Sankar Prashad Dalapati, Advocate (Mob. 9836074135), is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the 23 July 2014 Agreement for Sale, excluding the consumer‑forum disputes.
  • The Sole Arbitrator must disclose interests per Section 12(1) and fix remuneration according to the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed.
  • All substantive issues—limitation, quantum, liability, and any claim under the agreement—remain for the arbitrator to determine.
  • The appointment does not suspend, dilute, or affect the Consumer Commission’s final order of 22 April 2025, nor the pending execution proceedings before the Commission.
  • The order does not comment on the merits of the criminal case (Rajarhat Police Station Case No. 47 of 2020).
  • No costs were awarded.

Topics: Arbitration, Consumer Protection