M/S RAM CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 121 of 2026

M/S Ram Chandra
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                              .....Opposite
                                                                    Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Ankit Shukla, Rajeev Ratan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

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 for the applicant submits that pursuant to the tender,
an agreement was executed between the parties on 10.02.2025 for the
work of Bhaisahi Appraoch road for renovation during the Magh Mela
2024-25. The applicant completed the work within time on 09.03.2025,
but the entire payment has not been made till date in spite of several
requests being made by the applicant and ultimately, on 16.06.2026, a
notice/letter was issued to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause;
however, the respondent failed to respond to the same. Hence, this
application.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact about
the existence of dispute between the parties.

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:
                                                         ARCO No. 121 of 2026
                               2


"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
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. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Shri Bharat Pratap
Singh, Advocate (AOR No. A/B 0132/2012), resident of Flat No.302
Vinayak Mayo Residency, Near Mayo Hall, City & District - Prayagraj
(U.P), Mobile No. 9415215096 (e-mail ID: [email protected]), who is
present in the Court and has given his consent, to act as an Arbitrator for
                                                                                            ARCO No. 121 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    resolving the disputes between the parties.

                                    12. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to his fees and expenses in accordance
                                    with the fourth Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

                                    13. In view of the above, 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
                                    within a week.



                                                                                          (Piyush Agrawal,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Amit Mishra




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