Udit Ganguly And Anr vs M/S Yash Manufacturers
2026 Latest Caselaw 1483 Cal/2

Calcutta High Court

Udit Ganguly And Anr vs M/S Yash Manufacturers on 26 February, 2026

Author: Shampa Sarkar

Bench: Shampa Sarkar

 ORDER                                                                      OCD - 16
                        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                             COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                                ORIGINAL SIDE

                                 AP-COM/124/2026
                              UDIT GANGULY AND ANR.
                                        VS
                             M/s YASH MANUFACTURERS

BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 26th February 2026
                                                                           Appearance:-
                                                              Ms. SonalSaha, Advocate
                                                                  ... for the petitioners.



1.   Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears for

     the respondent. It appears that the respondent was also served by email

in addition to registered speed post.

2. The petitioners and the respondent entered into a joint agreement on June

1, 2023. The petitioners' case is that in terms of the said agreement, both

parties agreed to collaborate for the business of manufacturing,

marketing, distributing, selling and/or supplying the products, specifically

pumps and pump sets, to government sectors, public sectors and non-

government undertakings, with special focus on the railway sector. Under

the said agreement, the petitioners were required to secure the projects

and orders through their bidding process and the respondent was

responsible for manufacturing the products. Article-16 of the agreement

provides for settlement of disputes by arbitration by a sole arbitrator. The

venue of the arbitration had been agreed to be Kolkata, West Bengal.

3. The petitioners allege that the respondent had committed several breaches

namely, unilateral termination, refusal to supply the products, arbitrary

price increase, failure to fulfil warrantee obligations and also breach of the

exclusivity clause. As a result, the petitioners suffered significant

damages towards additional costs, incurred loss of business opportunity

and the railways also imposed damages. The dispute could not be

resolved amicably, although several meetings were held between the

parties. By a notice dated September 22, 2025, the petitioners invoked

the arbitration clause and suggested three names of persons who could be

appointed as the sole arbitrator, asking the respondent to choose one.

The respondent disagreed with the proposal to send the dispute to

arbitration. The respondent allegedly informed that it had a counter-claim

of more than Rs.23 lakh. The petitioners submit that in September 2025,

the claim of the petitioners was more than Rs.16 lakh, but the said claim

has gone up substantially.

4. In view of the disputes which have been raised by the petitioners and

upon going through the reply of the respondent, it appears that there are

disputes between the parties which are required to be resolved in terms of

the arbitration agreement.

5. Under such circumstances, this application is allowed by appointing Mr.

Avishek Guha, Advocate [Mobile: 9830956258], as the sole arbitrator, to

arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties. The learned Arbitrator

shall comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Arbitrator shall be at liberty to fix his

remuneration as per the schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996.

6. All questions as to the arbitrability of the issues, admissibility of the

claims, limitation etc, shall be decided by the learned arbitrator, if so

raised.

7. AP-COM 124 of 2026 is disposed of accordingly.

(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)

S. Kumar