Cic Society vs. M/S. Mitsubishi Elevator INDIA PVT. LTD.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, CIC Society, filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator. The dispute arose from two offer letters dated August 30, 2023, issued by the respondent, M/s. Mitsubishi Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., for the installation of elevators. The total price for the elevators, including GST at 18%, amounted to INR 1,00,28,977. The petitioner sought a refund of the advance payment made, alleging that the installation could not be completed. The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to provide the necessary space for installation and did not comply with the terms and conditions of the offer letters. The petitioner terminated the offers and invoked arbitration on May 23, 2025, after the respondent refused to refund the advance.
Held
The Court held that a live dispute exists between the parties, as evidenced by their allegations and counter-allegations regarding the installation of elevators and the refund of advance payments. Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate these disputes. The Court allowed the application and appointed Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Advocate, as the learned Arbitrator. The parties were granted liberty to raise all their claims and counter-claims, including objections regarding arbitrability, admissibility of claims, and limitation, before the appointed arbitrator. The order was made subject to compliance with Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the arbitrator was directed to fix remuneration in terms of the Schedule of the Act. The specific issue of whether the petitioner's non-compliance with terms prevented installation was implicitly left for the arbitrator to decide.
Key Issues
1. Whether a dispute exists between the parties that is arbitrable under the arbitration agreement contained in the offer letters, and if so, whether an arbitrator should be appointed? (Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996). The petitioner argued that a live dispute exists due to the respondent's failure to install elevators and refusal to refund the advance, necessitating the appointment of an arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement in the offer letters. The respondent argued that the petitioner's failure to provide space and comply with terms prevented installation, implying a dispute that might not be arbitrable or that the petitioner is at fault. The respondent did not explicitly argue against arbitrability but raised counter-allegations regarding the petitioner's non-compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 11, Section 12
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/867/2025 CIC SOCIETY VS M/S. MITSUBISHI ELEVATOR INDIA PVT. LTD.
BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 27th November, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. S. K. Poddar, Adv. Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Adv. …for petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra Patnaik, Adv. …for respondent.
The Court: The petitioner is a society. The petitioner prays for appointment of a learned Arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement contained under clauses 11 and 15 of two offer letters bearing no. IMEC-OS- SQL-02, ref. IMEC/KOL/UD/SP/23001092 and no.IMEC-OS-SQI-02, ref. IMEC/KOL/UD/SP/23001092, both dated August 30, 2023. The offer letters were issued by the respondent. The same were accepted by the petitioner. As per the offer letters, the respondent was supposed to install elevators, the specifications whereof are given below. Sl.no. Elevator no. Brief specification Unit Per unit price GST 18%[INR] Total price [INR] 1 L4 1350 Kgs [20 pax] 24 stops – 2.5 mps – Co- MR 1 51,03,763 9,18,677 60,22,440 2 L1 884 Kgs [13 Pax] 25 stops-Co-
5 Mps-MR 1 33,95,370 6,11,167 40,06,537
Total
1,00,28,977
2 The petitioner asked for refund of the advance made as the installation could not be done. Learned advocate for the respondent submits that the installation could not be done because the petitioner could not provide the required space for such installation. He further submits that the offer was subject to certain terms and conditions, but the petitioner did not comply with those terms and conditions. Admittedly, the parties have allegations and counter allegations against each other, which shows that there is a live dispute. The petitioner terminated the offers and prayed for refund of the money advanced. The respondent refused to refund the money. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked arbitration by a letter dated May 23, 2025. Under such circumstances, this application is allowed, by appointing Ms. Debjani Sengupta, learned Advocate (Mob:- 9836724635) as the learned Arbitrator. The parties are at liberty to raise all their claims and counter claims against each other before the learned Arbitrator. All objections with regard to the arbitrability of the dispute, admissibility of the claim, limitation, etc. may also be raised before the learned Arbitrator. This order is passed subject to compliance of Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Arbitrator shall fix his remuneration in terms of the Schedule of the Act. AP-COM/867/2025 is accordingly disposed of.
.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
pkd.
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.