M/S. D. D. M. Enterprise vs. General Manager, Bsnl, Jalpaiguri Oa And Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. D. D. M. Enterprise, a partnership firm, 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 Job Contract Agreement dated November 1, 2019, with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The petitioner alleged that BSNL failed to release payments for certified bills within the stipulated period, leading to the petitioner's inability to make timely statutory payments, including GST. This resulted in coercive actions against the petitioner. The petitioner had previously filed a similar petition before the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, which was disposed of with liberty to issue a proper notice invoking arbitration. The respondent, BSNL, contended that the present petition was not maintainable before this Bench and that the claims were barred by limitation. However, the respondent had previously acknowledged the arbitration clause and proposed an arbitrator.
Held
The Court held that it has adequate jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as it pertains to a commercial dispute. Regarding the respondent's contentions on limitation and maintainability of claims, the Court held that these issues fall within the domain of the learned Arbitrator, who shall decide whether the claims are maintainable or arbitrable. The Court reiterated the well-settled principle that the jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement, as per Section 11(6A). Since the parties did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration clause, the requirements under Section 11(6) were fulfilled. Accordingly, the Court appointed Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Senior Advocate, Calcutta High Court, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. All questions relating to arbitrability, admissibility of claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and other issues were left open to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Key Issues
1. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the prior petition filed before the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri? (Question of law). 2. Whether the claims raised by the petitioner are barred by limitation and are otherwise arbitrable? (Question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the present petition is maintainable before this Bench as it pertains to a commercial dispute. They contended that the arbitration clause in the contract is valid and that they have complied with the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration, including issuing a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Act. They relied on the arbitration clause (Clause 15) of the work contract. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable before this Bench due to the prior filing before the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench. They also contended that the claims, pertaining to 2019 and 2020, are barred by limitation. Despite opposing the appointment of an arbitrator, the respondent had previously acknowledged the arbitration clause and proposed an arbitrator.
Sections Cited
Section 11(6), Section 21, Section 11(6A), Section 12(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OCD-11 ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE
AP-COM/321/2026
M/S. D. D. M. ENTERPRISE VS GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, JALPAIGURI OA AND OTHERS
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 15th July, 2026. Appearance: Ms. Swastika Chowdhury, Adv. …for the petitioner
Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Adv. …for the respondents
The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties out of and in connection with the Job Contract Agreement dated 1st November, 2019. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of providing manpower, labour supply and allied contractual services to various government and public sector establishments including Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), and has been carrying on such business for a considerable period of time. Pursuant to a tender, the petitioner submitted its bid which was accepted by the respondent
2 authorities. Accordingly, the respondent authorities issued the work order and thereafter a formal Job Contract Agreement dated 01.11.2019 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent authorities for supply of manpower. Although, the said contract continued till its termination by the respondent on 25th March, 2023, although the contractual validity was upto 31st March, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner performed all contractual obligations to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities and regularly submitted monthly bills along with supporting documents including wage sheets, EPF, ESI, and statutory compliance documents, under the terms of the agreement, the respondent authorities were required to release payment of certified bills raised by the petitioner within one month from the date of submission of bills. However, the respondent allegedly failed and neglected to release the payments within the stipulated period. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner could not make statutory payments towards the Provident Fund, ESI, GST and other statutory dues within time. It is contended that coercive actions were initiated by the statutory authorities against the petitioner, resulting in substantial financial loss and prejudice to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the arbitration clause contained in clause 15 of the work contract. She further states that a notice under Section 21 of the Act was issued on 16th October, 2025 and pursuant to which a petition under Section 11 was filed before the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri being AP/2/2026. The Circuit Bench vide its order dated 13th February, 2026 disposed of the said
3 AP/2/2026 by granting liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the matter and to issue a proper notice invoking arbitration. In terms of the said direction, the petitioner issued a notice dated 18th March, 2026 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the present petition is not maintainable before this Bench since the petitioner had earlier approached the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri by filing a petition under Section 11 of the said Act. He further states that the claims filed by the petitioner pertain to the years 2019 and 2020 and are, therefore, barred by limitation. Though the respondent opposes the appointment of an arbitrator, it had itself, by letter dated 7th January, 2025, acknowledged the existence of the arbitration clause and proposed the name of Ms. Sudipta Panda as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. In view of the disputes having arisen between the parties, the petitioner has invoked the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 15. Upon consideration of the materials placed on record and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that since this matter pertains to the commercial dispute between the parties, this Court has adequate juri iction to entertain the present petition. In so far as the contention of the respondent regarding limitation and maintainability of the claims are concerned, the same falls within the domain of the learned Arbitrator who shall decide whether the said claims are maintainable or arbitrable. It is now well settled principle of law that the juri iction of the court under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to
4 a prima facie examination of the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. In view of section 11(6A) of the Act, ‘the Supreme Court or as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6), shall notwithstanding any judgment decree or order of any court, confine to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement’. In view of the limited scope of examination under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is only required to examine the existence of the arbitration agreement and the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. In the facts of the present case, the parties do not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. In view of the same, this Court is, therefore, satisfied that the requirements under Section 11(6) of the Act stand fulfilled and that the disputes between the parties are fit to be referred to arbitration. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Senior Advocate, Calcutta High Court (Mob No.9830053066) is appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter reference in due compliance with Section 12(5) of the Act. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed between the parties.
5 A copy 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.)
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.