IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

COMMERCIAL DIVISION

ORIGINAL SIDE

RESERVED ON: 28.11.2025 DELIVERED ON: 08.12.2025

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH

APOT 259 OF 2025

IA NO: GA-COM 1 OF 2025, GA-COM 2 OF 2025

SALTEE INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

VERSUS

M/S SHIVAM INDUSTRIAL PARKS AND ESTATES LTD

Appearance:

Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amritam Mandal, Adv.

Ms. Swati Agarwal, Adv.

….. For the Petitioner.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kr. Saraf, Adv.

Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. …… For the Respondent.

JUDGMENT Development Agreement dated 07.04.2014, the Appellant was appointed as the developer, while the Respondent continued as the landowner. A registered Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of two representatives of the Appellant to facilitate implementation of the project.

Gaurang Kanth, J.:-

1. The Appellant has preferred the present Arbitration appeal under Section

37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the interim award dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitral

proceedings arising between the parties.

2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as follows: 3. The Respondent is the owner of land admeasuring 91.5 decimals (55

cottahs) situated at Municipal Holding No. 148, Block A, Gopalpur, Jagardanga Main Road, Rajarhat Six Lane Expressway, Kolkata. Under a

4. In terms of the Development Agreement, the Respondent’s obligation was limited to contributing the land, whereas the Appellant was solely responsible for undertaking and financing all activities relating to development, construction, and marketing.

5. On 20.03.2018, the Appellant obtained building sanction for two blocks (i)

Basement + Ground + 7 floors and (ii) Ground + 5 floors. The first block (B+G+7) forming part of the “Saltee Splendora” project was completed in

2019, following which the second phase was commenced.

6. Pursuant to the agreed sharing ratio, the Appellant handed over 4 flats and

4 shops to the Respondent, which were duly accepted. An additional 7 flats were also offered; however, the Respondent declined acceptance, raising disputes regarding deductions towards marketing charges, other incidental charges, and 10% extra proceeds for the additional saleable area.

7. On 21.12.2022, the Respondent terminated the Development Agreement alleging delay in the completion of the project. The Appellant contends that such unilateral termination was legally impermissible, particularly as it had invested approximately Rs. 45 crores in the project, sold nearly 80% of the flats in Phase-I, repaid the construction loan, and returned the original title deeds to the Respondent on 14.03.2023. Owing to the disputes, the Respondent invoked the arbitration clause, and the disputes were accordingly referred to arbitration.

8. Prior to commencement of arbitral proceedings, the Respondent filed Misc.

Case No. 32/2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Rajarhat Commercial Court and secured an order directing that any prospective sale of flats/shops be executed with the Respondent as a confirming party, was entitled to 40% of the sale proceeds pending disposal of the application. After the commencement of the arbitration proceedings, the Arbitral Tribunal continued the said direction.

9. During the course of arbitration, both parties preferred applications under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. By order dated 16.08.2023, the learned Arbitrator modified the earlier interim order and restrained the appellant from entering into fresh agreements for sale or creating third-party rights in respect of the remaining unsold flats.

10. In a subsequent applications filed by the Respondent, the Arbitral Tribunal by order dated 26.02.2024, directed both parties to maintain status quo, restrained the Appellant from creating any encumbrance over the title deeds, and directed the Appellant to deposit the admitted amount of Rs. 11,54,09,382/– in a nati