[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
Frostees India Pvt. Ltd vs Paschim Banga Society For Skill ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Shampa Sarkar
Bench: Shampa Sarkar
OCD 4
ORDER SHEET
AP-COM/668/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE
FROSTEES INDIA PVT. LTD.
VS
PASCHIM BANGA SOCIETY FOR SKILL DEVELOPMENT
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR
Date: 5th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. S. Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Dyutimoy Paul, Adv.
. . .for the petitioner.
Mr. Arindam Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Adv.
. . .for the respondent.
The Court:
1. This is an application for appointment of an Arbitrator. The petitioner
seeks enforcement of the Memorandum of Understanding. The
petitioner prays for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution of
disputes which arose out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated
November 1, 2017 and non-compliance of the terms and conditions
provided in the brochure for trainings under Utkarsh Bangla 2017-18.
The Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the
petitioner and the respondent for imparting training projects under
Utkarsh Bangla Guidelines. The petitioner contends to have
implemented the training projects successfully and fulfilled all
deliverables under the MoU, in consonance with the guidelines of
Utkarsh Bangla.
2. It is contended that a sum of Rs. 53,79,244.00 has been illegally
withheld by the respondent. Clause 9 of the MoU contains an
arbitration clause which provides that the parties agreed that any
dispute arising out of the said MoU shall be addressed mutually by
them and if the amicable settlement fails, the dispute shall be referred
to a nominated representative by the first party, in accordance with the
amended act, who will act as an Arbitrator for that purpose and whose
decision shall be final and binding. The jurisdiction has been agreed as
the Calcutta High Court.
3. According to the petitioner, last payment was made some time in May
2019. Thereafter, although the trainees were placed under respective
employers and had continued to be in employment, the guidelines were
violated by the respondent and the money due and payable under
Clause 2.7.2 of the Guidelines was violated. The said Clause is quoted
below:
"2.7.2 The Funding Norms would be as per the following:
a) The TP shall be paid not more than 80% of the total fees
payable on successfully assessed students before the
placement and tracking reports are completed.
b) A minimum of 20% of the training fees payable to the
training providers shall be linked to placement of the
trained candidates and the submission of the "Post Training
Tracking report" covering a period of 12 months from the
date of completion of training and after the trainee remains
in continuous employment of 6 months.
c) Security Bank Guarantee shall be released on completion of
18 months from the date of starting commencement of the
batch as mentioned in the work order."
4. Mr. Mandal, learned advocate for the respondent, submits that the
claim of the petitioner is deadwood. The last payment was received in
2019. The dispute relates solely to non-payment of outstanding dues.
The period of limitation expired much earlier. The notice invoking
arbitration was issued on July 28, 2025. Even going by the dates
mentioned by the respondent in the supplementary affidavit that the
last payment was made in September 30, 2021 and the Covid period is
excluded in computing the period of limitation, the notice invoking
arbitration would still be beyond the period of three years from accrual
of cause of action.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, it appears to this
Court that the petitioner seeks substantial enforcement of Clause 2.7.2
of the guidelines. The said clause provides that 20% payment shall be
made upon the trainees not only being employed but having stayed in
employment for a period of six months from the date of such
employment.
6. Under such circumstances, reliance has also been placed on certain
documents which indicate that the respondent was communicating with
the petitioner even in August, 2022 after disempanelment of the
petitioner, seeking compliance of certain terms and conditions of the
guidelines. Annexure A to the supplementary affidavit dated December
24, 2025 stands testimony to such fact.
7. The petitioner was asked by the representative of the respondent to
circulate a message with regard to the holding of a job fair amongst the
candidates who were trained by the petitioner. A document has been
produced before this Court with the details of placement of 13 trainees,
and their employers. The placement seems to have taken place some
time in 2022. Thus, even if, part of the claim is time barred, this Court
finds that issue of 20% of the payment under Clause 2.7.2 of the
guidelines is yet to be decided. Thus, the arbitrator will decide such
issues.
8. However, these are, prima facie, observations of the Court in support of
the finding that limitation in this case is a mixed question of law and
fact and the same has to be decided upon the parties by leading
evidence.
9. Under such circumstances, this Court allows the application by
appointing Mr. Satyam Mukherjee (8017382322) as the learned
Advocate, as the learned Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes between
the parties. This appointment is subject to compliance of Section 12 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
10. The learned Arbitrator shall fix her remuneration as per the
Schedule of the Act.
11. All objections with regard to jurisdiction, arbitrability, admissibility
and limitation etc, are left open.
12. AP-COM 668 of 2025 is, accordingly, disposed of.
(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.)
SP/
