Calcutta High Court Jai Balaji Industries Limited vs Tiara Infrastructure Ltd on 26 August, 2025 OCD 1 ORDER SHEET APCOM/590/2025 COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS TIARA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date: 26th August, 2025. Appearance: Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Rajshree Kajaria, Adv. Mr. Uttam Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adrita Dey, Adv. ...for the petitioner Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Indumouli Banerjee, Adv. 1. This is an application for appointment of an arbitrator, for adjudication of the disputes which have allegedly arisen out of letters of intent and work orders issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, for carrying out several works at the Jai Balaji Industries Limited, Unit No.3 and Unit No.4 at Durgapur. 2. Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that all the letters of intent and the work orders are interconnected and interlinked and as such, a composite reference should be permitted. The petitioner has made a composite claim for damages suffered on account of 2 alleged abandonment of work by the respondent and for other reasons. Reliance has been placed on the arbitration clause in each of the letters of intent and work orders, in support of the contention that all the work orders and the letters of intent contain a similar arbitration clause. It is further contended that the courts of Kolkata have jurisdiction over the matters. 3. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent submits that The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, shall prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Two applications have been filed by the respondent before the Facilitation Council and the Council is in seisin over the matter. Under such circumstances, when orders have been passed in conciliation, the application before this Court is not maintainable. The special statute shall have an overriding effect over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the arbitration clause is subservient to the rights which the MSME unit has acquired under the said MSMED Act. 4. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the letter of intent dated January 11, 2023 and the work orders dated March 2, 2023 and March 3, 2023 are in respect of works to be undertaken by the petitioner at the Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., Unit No. III. These work orders and the letter of intent are in relation to one industrial unit and the same project. Under such circumstances, a composite reference in respect of the disputes arising out of these contracts is permissible. It will save time and resources. All of them have similar arbitration clauses. 3 5. This Court accepts Mr. Banerjee's contention to the extent that the letter of intent dated March 23, 2023, is in respect of a separate project (unit IV), and as such, the claims arising out of the said letter of intent cannot be decided along with the other claims arising out of the project at unit No. III. The petitioner shall take appropriate steps in respect of the claims under the said of LOI, by issuing a separate notice involving arbitration. 6. With regard to the contention of Mr. Banerjee that, during the pendency of the proceeding before the Facilitation Council, the arbitral Court should refuse to refer the dispute, this Court is of the view that the question touches the issue of jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator and arbitrability of the dispute. The specific contention of Mr. Banerjee is that, the respondent had approached the Council for adjudication of a money claim raised by it. In case of failure of the conciliation, the petitioner will always be at liberty to file a counterclaim before the Council. Sect