M/S HARI NARAYAN RAIversusMS GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 106 of 2026

M/S Hari Narayan Rai
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

Ms Gmr Infrastructure Limited
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Hariom Kamal Singh, Nand Kishore
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prashant Kumar Tripathi

Court No. - 7
                    HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Hariom Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the contract
agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent for
carrying out earthwork and allied works under the DFCC Project. He
further submits that the actual commencement of the work was delayed
on account of monsoon and prevailing site conditions. It is further
submitted that a second Purchase Order was issued by the respondent,
pursuant to which the applicant was directed to shift its manpower and
machinery to the site. The applicant duly completed the work and
thereafter handed over the site to the respondent. Learned counsel further
submits that despite completion of the work, the respondent issued a
notice imposing liquidated damages of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter
terminated the Letter of Acceptance. He further submits that no amicable
settlement could be arrived at between the parties. It is further submitted
that despite receipt of the applicant's notice invoking arbitration, the
respondent failed to appoint its nominee arbitrator within the stipulated
period of 30 days. Consequently, the respondent forfeited its right to
                                                         ARCO No. 106 of 2026
                               2


appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of
Contract read with Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. Hence, the present application has been preferred by the applicant
seeking appointment of an arbitrator.

5. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by learned counsel for
the respondent.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the scope of the present
proceedings under Section 11 of the Act does not require any elaboration in
view of that position in law having been made crystal clear by a recent three
judge decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Mayavati Trading
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2019,
decided on 05.09.2019 in which it has been held as below:

"This being the position, it is clear that the law prior to the 2015
Amendment that has been laid down by this Court, which would have
included going into whether accord and satisfaction has taken place, has
now been legislatively overruled. This being the position, it is difficult to
agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgment as Section
11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration
agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid
down in the judgment Duro Felguera, S.A. (supra) -- see paras 48 & 59."

7. While laying down that law, the Supreme Court had itself referred to
paragraph nos. 48 & 59 of its earlier decision in the case of Duro
Felguera, S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729.

8. That position in law has been reiterated in a recent decision of the
Supreme Court in GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sokrati
Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 192.

9. In the facts of the present case, on prima facie basis, it has to be
accepted that there exists an arbitration clause, between the parties. Also,
it is clear that the parties have not been able to appoint consented
arbitrator and therefore, the appointing authority has to be assumed by
this Court upon the present application.
                                                                                              ARCO No. 106 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    10. At the same time, no final conclusion is being drawn as may affect the
                                    merits of the claim. That matter would remain to be considered by the
                                    appropriate forum at the appropriate stage, upon claim, objection,
                                    challenge or appeal being filed. Thus, amongst others it would remain
                                    open to the opposite party to raise all objections as the Act permits.

                                    11. Leaving that course completely open to the respective parties, at
                                    present, only a forum is being provided for adjudication of a claim
                                    proposed to be raised and resisted, in accordance with the law.

                                    12. Accordingly, this Court appoints the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bala
                                    Krishna Narayana, a Former Judge of this Court, resident of 'Vindhya'
                                    26/5, Muir Road, Prayagraj, (Mob No.9839175855) to act as an Arbitrator
                                    for resolving the disputes between the parties.

                                    13. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to the fee in accordance as
                                    may be agreed between the parties and the learned Arbitrator.

                                    14. The present arbitration application stands allowed.

                                    15. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned
                                    Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including the electronic modes.



                                                                                          (Piyush Agrawal,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    A.N. Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad