Allahabad High Court

HARVIR SINGHversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 4 May 2026
Bench: PIYUSH AGRAWAL

Holding

The court held that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and, since the parties failed to appoint a consented arbitrator, it may appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Summary

Harvir Singh, a contract employee since 2004, claimed that after his termination on 22-02-2025 his employer failed to pay full dues. He invoked the arbitration clause in his contract, but the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents did not respond. The applicant filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the court’s appointment of a sole arbitrator. The court, relying on recent Supreme Court decisions clarifying that Section 11(6A) deals only with the existence of an arbitration agreement, held that a prima facie arbitration agreement exists and the parties have not appointed an arbitrator. Consequently, the court appointed Shri Piyush Bhargava as arbitrator, granting him fees as per the Fourth Schedule, and allowed the arbitration application without deciding the merits of the dispute.

Issues considered

Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) when the parties have failed to do so.
Whether the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) affects the merits of the underlying claim.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(6), 11(6A), Fourth Schedule

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 11(6)
Arbitration agreement
Appointment of arbitrator
Contract termination
High Court of Allahabad

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 188 of 2025

Harvir Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Adarsh Bhushan, 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 applicant was appointed
on contract basis in the year 2004 and since then, the provident fund has
been deducting. He further submits that thereafter, vide order dated
22.02.2025, the agreement of the applicant was terminated, but full
payment has not been made. 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:

"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
ARCO No. 188 of 2025
2

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 Piyush
Bhargava, Advocate (AOR No. A/P 0157/2012), resident of 200,
Lukerganj, City & District - Prayagraj (U.P), Office Address: 349/117
Ashok Nagar, City & District - Prayagraj, Mobile No. 9450781922 (e-
mail ID:[email protected] ), who is present in the Court and
has given his consent, to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes
between the parties.
ARCO No. 188 of 2025
3

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. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator.

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
May 5, 2026
Amit Mishra

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…