IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ARBP No.44 of 2024 M/s. PVR INOX Ltd., Mumbai …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.–

Mr. Swayamjit Rout, Advocate -Versus-

M/s. Grand Bazaar Developers LLP …. Opposite Parties and Others Represented by Adv.–

Mr. Soumya Mishra, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

Order No. 25.07.2025

08. 1. The defence which is permissible to be taken before the Arbitrator, is taken before this Court at a stage of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956. The opposite party sought to convince the Court that he has a genuine defence to the claim raised by the petitioner as the dispute concerning the receipt of an amount is in fact not provided to him.

2. The genesis of the litigation can be reasonably traced out when a memorandum of understanding was executed on 13^th August, 2016 between the petitioner and a lessee of the government for providing a space in a mall to be constructed at the site and in order to facilitate the smooth construction within the time bound manner, the substantial amount to the tune of Rs.23,40,000/- was paid. Subsequently, a tripartite agreement in the form of Deed of Adherence was executed on 29^th March, 2018 between the petitioner, the original lessee and the sub-lessee which has been arrayed as opposite party in the instant application wherein the amount so paid to the original lessee is transferred to the said sub-lessee, the opposite party herein and the responsibility to refund is also imposed upon the opposite party. The said Deed of Adherence also contains an arbitration clause in the event any dispute arise between the parties. The dispute was raised by the petitioner as the construction could not be completed within the stipulated time and invited the attention of the opposite party to concur with the arbitrator but there was a refusal on the part of the opposite party as he disputed to have received the said amount. Thus, a dispute cropped up between the parties and in view of the arbitration agreement, the same is to be adjudicated by an arbitrator. Since the parties could not arrive at the consensus, there is no fetter on the part of the Court to appoint the arbitrator.

3. Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate of this Court is appointed as Arbitrator. He is directed to complete the arbitral proceedings within the time indicated in Section 29A of the said Act. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be paid in accordance with schedule appended to the said Act. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the High Court of Orissa, Arbitration Centre.

4. The arbitration petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned Arbitrator forthwith.

( Harish Tandon )

Chief Justice SK Jena/Secy.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Page 3 of 3 Reason: Authentication Location: High Cou rt of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 29-Jul-2025 18:17:43