Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Corporate Law

Section 11 Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial on Arbitrability: Calcutta HC

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 11919
Case Name
Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt Ltd Vs Department of Information Technology and Electronics (Calcutta High Court)
Advertisement


Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt Ltd Vs Department of Information Technology and Electronics (Calcutta High Court)

Summary: The Calcutta High Court considered a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator in disputes arising from a registered Sub-Lease Agreement dated 04.07.2008 between Rolta Infrastructure and Technology Services Pvt Ltd and the Department of Information Technology and Electronics, Government of West Bengal.

The Respondent had obtained a lease of approximately 10.052 acres of land from the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority for 99 years and subsequently sub-leased approximately 5 acres to the Petitioner for the unexpired lease period for establishing an Information Technology and Electronics project. According to the Petitioner, the Sub-Lease Agreement contemplated development of the project by the Petitioner and required the Respondent to provide external infrastructure, including a power supply point, water line connection and sewerage outlet under Clause “h” of the Second Schedule. The Petitioner alleged that despite repeated requests between 2010 and 2017, the requisite infrastructure and approvals were not provided.

The Respondent subsequently issued a letter dated 20.09.2023 purporting to revoke the Sub-Lease Agreement on the grounds that no construction had been undertaken and that the Petitioner had mortgaged the sub-leased property, resulting in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Petitioner disputed the allegations and stated that the mortgage had been created after obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Respondent. By letter dated 16.10.2023, the Petitioner disputed the revocation and asserted that the Respondent had no authority to terminate the Sub-Lease Agreement when, according to the Petitioner, the Respondent had failed to discharge its reciprocal contractual obligations.

Paid content

Become a Basic or Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Basic or Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 19,460

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.