M/S Bhola Caters And Supplier vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhola Caters and Supplier, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The disputes arose from a Letter of Award and Bid Document dated August 18, 2022, for catering services at Shalimar Station. The petitioner paid a license fee of Rs. 15,00,000/- (including GST) and a security deposit of Rs. 2,34,000/- for a five-year license from January 26, 2023, to January 25, 2028. The petitioner claims disputes arose after receiving communications from the respondents in January 2025 and February 2026, wherein the license fee was unilaterally enhanced, leading to termination of the license, forfeiture of security deposits, and a demand of Rs. 4,91,452/-. The petitioner complied with the respondents' request for particulars of disputes and waiver under Sections 12(5) and 31A(5) of the Act, but no arbitrator was appointed.
Held
The Court held that the existence of the arbitration agreement is not in dispute and that the controversy arises out of the contractual relationship between the parties. The Court noted that the petitioner had duly invoked the arbitration agreement and complied with the requirements set by the respondents. Since the respondents did not dispute the arbitration agreement and the contractual terms, the Court found it appropriate to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. With the consent of both parties, Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate, was appointed as the learned sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is to enter upon the reference after making the necessary disclosure under Section 12(1) and subject to Section 12(5) of the Act. The Arbitrator will fix her remuneration as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as agreed by the parties. Crucially, all questions relating to arbitrability, admissibility of claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and other issues were expressly left open to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator in accordance with the law. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court has the power to appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the existence of an arbitration agreement in the contract between the petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that an arbitration agreement exists as per clause 19 of the bid document/Master License Agreement, which incorporates the General Condition of Contract for railway works and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. They argued that disputes have arisen from the contractual relationship, and despite due invocation of the arbitration agreement and compliance with the respondents' stipulated requirements, the respondents have failed to appoint an arbitrator. Respondents' arguments: The respondents acknowledged the existence of the General Condition of Contracts containing arbitration clauses, the execution of the contractual terms, and the Master License Agreement between the parties. They did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement.
Sections Cited
Section 11(6), Section 12(5), Section 31A(5), Fourth Schedule
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OCD-19 ORDER SHEET
In The High Court at Calcutta Commercial Division Original Side
AP-COM/665/2026
M/S BHOLA CATERS AND SUPPLIER -VS- UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 31st August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Souma Subhra Ray, Adv. Mr. Akshat Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Susmita Saha, Adv. Ms. Neelam Kumari ,Adv. Ms. Swagata Santra, Adv. …for the petitioner
Ms. Rashmi Bothra, Adv. Mr. Banani Bhattacharya, Adv. …for the respondents (UOI)
The Court :- The petitioner have preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences that have arisen out of the Letter of Award dated 18th August, 2022 and Bid Document for “Provision of catering services on Special Minor Unit (SMU) number/name 05/ SHM 06/13 at PF-01 at Shalimar Station of Category “A” earmarked for SC Category”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the licence was for a period of five years commencing from 26th January, 2023 and ending on 25th January, 2028. The petitioner state that he had duly paid the license fee of Rs.15,00,000/- including the GST and security deposit of Rs.2,34,000/- pursuant to which the possession of the site was handed over to him.
2 Petitioner relies on clause 19 of the bid document/Master License Agreement which contains the arbitral agreement and provides for resolution of disputes in terms of the General Condition of Contract for railway works and the applicable provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner contains that disputes and differences had arisen after the petitioner receive a communication from the respondents dated January, 2025 and February, 2026 wherein the respondents had enhanced the license fee unilaterally and demanded the said fees and ultimately terminated the licence and forfeited the security deposits and further raised a demand of Rs.4,91,452/- . Respondents by the letter dated 2nd March, 2026 called upon the petitioner to furnish their particulars of the disputes and the waiver under Sections 12(5) and 31A(5) of the Act. The petitioner states that the particulars and waiver were duly furnished but the respondents have till date failed to appoint an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that arbitration agreement is not in dispute and that the present controversy arises out of the contractual relationship between the parties. He further submits that despite due invocation of the arbitration agreement and compliance with the requirements stipulated by the respondents, the appointment of an Arbitrator has still not been made. Learned Counsel for the respondents states that they do not dispute the existence of the General Condition of the Contracts containing the arbitration clauses as well as the execution of the contractual terms between
3 the parties and the execution of the Master License Agreement between the parties. With the consent of the parties Ms. Srijani Ghosh, Advocate (Mob. No. 8910642648) is appointed as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference after making the disclosure in terms of Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be agreed between the parties. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator to take necessary steps. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, juri iction, and all other issues are left open to be urged before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
(GAURANG KANTH, J.)
S.A. AR(CR)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.