Allahabad High Court
MULTIFACTOR LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPversusDLT LABS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
- Decided
- Bench
- PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Holding
The Court appointed Justice Dilip Gupta as sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
Multifactor LLP filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator after DLT Labs failed to pay invoices under a lease agreement and ignored a notice invoking the arbitration clause. The notice was served by publication and the respondent did not appear or file a counter‑affidavit. The Court, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings that Section 11(6A) is limited to determining the existence of an arbitration agreement, held that a prima facie arbitration clause exists and the parties could not agree on an arbitrator. Consequently, the Court exercised its power under Section 11(6) to appoint former Judge Justice Dilip Gupta as the arbitrator, authorising his fees under the Fourth Schedule. The application was allowed, and the order was to be communicated to the arbitrator.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6) when the opposite party fails to appear after service by publication.
- Whether the existence of an arbitration agreement alone suffices for appointment of an arbitrator, without examining accord and satisfaction under pre‑2015 law.
- Whether such appointment affects the merits of the underlying dispute.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6), 11(6A)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 11
- Appointment of arbitrator
- Ex parte proceedings
- Service by publication
- Non‑payment of lease invoices
- Arbitration clause
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 125 of 2024
Multifactor Limited Liability Partnership
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Dlt Labs Technologies Private Limited
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Varun Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. Vide order dated 28.07.2026, this Court permitted the applicant to serve the
respondent by way of publication. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit of service has been
filed intimating the Court that the steps have been taken and the notice has been
served through publication. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party through
publication, no body has put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.09.2026, the matter
was adjourned on account of non-presence of the counsel for the opposite party with
clear stipulation that in case no body appears on the date fixed, i.e., 30.09.2026, the
matter shall be proceeded ex parte. Today, when the case is called out, neither any
counter affidavit has been filed, nor anybody has appeared on behalf of the opposite
party.
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 for the applicant submits that a Master Product & Service
agreement was executed between the parties on 23.09.2020 by viture of which certain
network hardware devices were procured by the respondent on lease from the
applicant. Thereafter, the applicant raised bills for payment, but the same has not been
paid in spite of several e-mails, reminders and requests, ultimately,a notice/letter was
issued to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause; however, the respondents
failed to respond to the same. Hence, this application.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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
ARCO No. 125 of 2024
2
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. This Court appoints 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, Mobile No. 9415215086 (Email ID: [email protected]), to act as
an Arbitrator for 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 30, 2026
Amit Mishra
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…