[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Ratan Lal Agarwal And Anr vs Gtl Infrastructure on 26 February, 2026
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
2023:CHC-OS:2149
OCD 33
ORDER SHEET
AP-COM/937/2025
IA NO:GA/2/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
RATAN LAL AGARWAL AND ANR
VS
GTL INFRASTRUCTURE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 26th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Dutimay Paul, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Baisya, Adv.
Ms. Ranjana Seal, Adv.
Mr. A. Chakraborty, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Upadhyay, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court:
1. The petitioner submits that the deed of lease was executed between the
petitioner and Dishnet Wireless Limited on August 10, 2007. Dishnet
Wireless Company Limited was a cellular mobile service provider and
had taken up the open terrace of the petitioner on lease for installation
of a mobile tower. Dishnet Wireless Limited was acquired by Chennai
Networn Infrastructure Limited (CNIL). Thereafter, a supplementary
agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the CNIL dated
2023:CHC-OS:2149
March 13, 2012. CNIL merged with GTL Infrastructure Ltd. and the
petitioner contends that GTL Infrastructure Ltd., that is, the
respondent, stepped into the shoes of the earlier lessee, Dishnet
Wireless Limited. The petitioner relies on the terms and conditions of
the agreement with Dishnet Wireless Limited to submit that Dishnet
Wireless Limited and thereafter its successors were under the
contractual obligation to pay lease rent before the 10 th of each of month
and also pay off all accrued taxes and other statutory dues with regard
to the operation of the mobile tower.
2. According to the petitioner, the respondent is the present lessee and
had failed and neglected to discharge its liabilities under the Lease
Agreement dated 10th August, 2007 and the supplementary agreement
dated 13th March, 2012. The petitioner has elaborately stated the dues
in paragraph 6 of this application. A notice invoking arbitration was
sent to the respondent through an advocate on November 29, 2018.
The petitioner relies on Clause 7.2 of the agreement dated August, 10,
2007 which provides for adjudication of dispute by a sole arbitrator and
the place of arbitration has been agreed to be Kolkata.
3. Disputes arose on account of unpaid dues towards rent, unpaid taxes of
the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and non-payment statutory dues.
The claim is more than Rs.50 lakhs.
4. Mr. Upadhyay, learned advocate for the respondent, submits that the
claims are inadmissible as they are time barred. The supplementary
agreement did not provide for settlement of disputes by way2023:CHC-OS:2149
of
arbitration. No agreement had been entered into between the
petitioners and the respondent. He also submits that the deed of lease
was not a registered document. He prays for dismissal of this
application.
5. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator. The scope of the
referral court is only to satisfy itself with regard to the existence of an
arbitration clause. The fact that the deed of lease was executed between
the petitioners and the predecessor in interest of the respondent is
available. The said deed of lease contains an arbitration clause under
clause 17.2 thereof. The lessee, as per the said deed of lease, includes
its administrators, executors, successors and assigns. Thus, it is the
specific case of the petitioners that the respondent had stepped into the
shoes of Dishnet Wireless Limited. It merged with CNIL. CNIL had
acquired Dishnet Wireless Limited. The supplementary agreement with
CNIL also mentions that the said supplementary agreement will be a
part and parcel of the principal lease agreement dated August 10, 2007.
6. Prima facie, there appears to be an arbitration clause, for adjudication
of the disputes between the parties. However, the issues raised by Mr.
Upadhyay that, the respondent was a non-signatory and as such could
not be referred to arbitration, is a question of misjoinder. The issue as
to whether a non-signatory can be sent to arbitration shall also be
decided by the learned arbitrator. Whether the arbitration clause
survives also will be decided by the learned arbitrator. Whether there
has been a novation upon signing of the supplementary agreement shall
2023:CHC-OS:2149
be also decided by the learned Arbitrator. Other issues of limitation,
admissibility etc. are left open to be urged before the learned arbitrator.
7. Under such circumstances, this application is allowed, by appointing
Mr. Ayan Kumar Boral, learned Advocate [Mob. No. 9830547806] 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.
8. AP-COM 937 of 2025 and GA/2/2025 stand disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
B.Pal/S. Kumar
