M/S. Alishan Vanijya Private Limited vs. The State Bank Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Alishan Vanijya Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. The dispute arose from an Agreement for Amenities and Facilities dated 29.06.2009, wherein the petitioner provided office space and related facilities. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, State Bank of India, failed to make payments as per the agreed escalation clause, resulting in outstanding dues, interest, and applicable GST. The petitioner invoked arbitration by issuing a notice on 12.06.2026. The respondent, in its reply dated 10.07.2026, disputed the petitioner's claims and did not agree to the proposed Arbitrator. As parties failed to agree on an Arbitrator within the statutory period, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Held
The Court held that a case has been made out for exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The existence of a valid arbitration agreement in Clause 8 of the Agreement for Amenities and Facilities dated 29.06.2009 was not disputed. The disputes sought to be referred arose out of this agreement. The arbitration was duly invoked by the petitioner via a notice under Section 21 of the Act. Despite the respondent's reply, the parties admittedly failed to reach a consensus on the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Consequently, the Court appointed Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate, as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes and differences arising from the agreement. The Arbitrator is to enter upon the reference after making disclosures as per Section 12(1) and subject to Section 12(5). Remuneration is to be fixed as per the Fourth Schedule or mutual agreement. All questions regarding arbitrability, admissibility of claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and other issues are left open to be decided by the Arbitrator. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether a case has been made out for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of a sole Arbitrator, given the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and the failure of parties to agree on an Arbitrator? The petitioner argued that a valid arbitration agreement exists, arbitration was invoked correctly, and the respondent's failure to agree on an Arbitrator necessitates the Court's intervention under Section 11(6). The respondent argued that no claim has accrued in favour of the petitioner and that all payments have been made up-to-date as per the agreement, implying no amount is outstanding. Therefore, there are no disputes to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator.
Sections Cited
Section 11(6), Section 21, Section 12(1), Section 12(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OCD-18 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/599/2026
M/S. ALISHAN VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED VS THE STATE BANK OF INDIA
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 12th August, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Ray, Adv. ..for the petitioner
Mr. Debashis Saha, Adv. Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Adv. Ms. Sucheta Pal, Adv. Mr. Jyotishman Sarkar, Adv. ..for the respondent
The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences arising out of the Agreement for Amenities and Facilities dated 29.06.2009. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner had undertaken to provide certain amenities and facilities in respect of office space measuring 1,445 sq.ft. situated at Premises No. 63, Nalini Ranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700053. According to the petitioner, the respondent failed to make payments towards the amenities and facilities charges in accordance with the agreed
2 escalation clause, and instead made only ad hoc payments from time to time, giving rise to disputes between the parties. The petitioner claims that a substantial amount remains outstanding, together with interest and applicable GST. Clause 8 of the agreement provides for adjudication of disputes between the parties with Kolkata being the venue of arbitration. Pursuant to this clause, the petitioner issued a notice invoking arbitration on 12.06.2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent, by its reply dated 10.07.2026, disputed the petitioner's claim and did not concur with the appointment of the proposed Arbitrator. As the parties have failed to arrive at a consensus on the appointment of an Arbitrator within the statutory period, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that no claim has accrued in favour of the petitioner and that up-to-date payment has been made in terms of the said agreement. He states that no amount is payable by the respondent to the petitioner as alleged to be outstanding. This Court has considered the materials placed on record and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. The existence of a valid arbitration agreement contained in Clause 8 of the Agreement for Amenities and Facilities dated 29.06.2009 is not in dispute. The disputes sought to be referred arise out of the said agreement. The arbitration agreement was duly invoked by the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Act dated 12.06.2026. Although the
3 respondent replied to the said notice, the parties admittedly failed to arrive at a consensus regarding the appointment of the sole Arbitrator. In these circumstances, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of juri iction under Section 11(6) of the Act. Accordingly, this Court appoints Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate (Mobile No. 9432820002) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes and differences that have arisen out of the Amenities and Facilities Agreement dated 29.06.2009. 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 be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned sole Arbitrator for necessary action. 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.)
bp.
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.