ARYATECH PLATFORMS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusVARDHMAN SOLVENT EXTRACTION INDUSTRIES LIMITED

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 120 of 2026

Aryatech Platforms Private Limited
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

Vardhman Solvent Extraction Industries Limited
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                       :   Divendu Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :

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

1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Jain, through V.C. for the applicant, who has been
identified by Mr. Divendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned counsel for the respondent.

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

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that despite the
commodities having been duly and timely procured and supplied by the
applicant, the respondent deliberately and intentionally failed to clear the
invoices raised by the applicant in terms of the agreement. He further
submits that the applicant was, therefore, constrained to issue a demand
notice calling upon the respondent to clear the total outstanding amount
towards the invoices. The applicant thereafter issued a legal notice for
foreclosure and enforcement of the mortgage, whereby the respondent
was once again called upon to pay the outstanding amount within seven
days from the date of receipt of the said notice. He further submits that
the respondent in its reply to the arbitration notice, merely made
mechanical and blanket denials to each and every paragraph thereof. He
further submits that despite receipt of the rejoinder dated 27.05.2026, the
respondent has neither confirmed the appointment of Mr. Dhairya Gupta
nor proposed any alternative name within the stipulated period of seven
days, or at all. He further submits that the period of 30 days stipulated in
the arbitration notice has also expired. Learned counsel further submits
                                                         ARCO No. 120 of 2026
                               2


that the mechanism for mutual appointment of an arbitrator contemplated
under Clause 9.2 of the Agreement having failed, the applicant has no
option but to approach this Court. Hence, the present application.

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

5. 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."

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. At the same time, no final conclusion is being drawn as may affect the
                                                                                                 ARCO No. 120 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    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.

                                    10. 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.

                                    11. Accordingly, this Court appoints the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip
                                    Gupta, a Former Judge of this Court, resident of Tower 8, Type-7, Floor
                                    6,    NBCC    Building,    East       Kidwai   Nagar,   New       Delhi    (Mob
                                    No.9415215086) (Email ID: [email protected]) to act as an
                                    Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties.

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

                                    13. The present arbitration application stands allowed.

                                    14. 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