M/S NEXGEN ENERGIA LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusM/S SUMIT BEVERAGES (LICENSE) AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 32 of 2026

M/S Nexgen Energia Limited And Another
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

M/S Sumit Beverages (License) And Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                :   Rajesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           :   Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya

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 a franchisee agreement
dated 28.5.2025 was executed between the parties and clause 17 of the
agreement contains the arbitration clause. He submits that some dispute
arose between the parties, therefore, the applicant had invoked the
arbitration clause by sending notice to the opposite party but no consented
arbitrator could be appointed.

4. The submissions of the counsel for the applicant was vehemently
opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties but the existence
of dispute has not been denied by the counsel for the opposite party
therefore, he also consented for resolving the dispute between the
parties by the Arbitrator appointed by this Court.

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
                                                                  ARCO No. 32 of 2026
                                   2


     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 brought before it, within
limitation.

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. Perusal of the record shows that contract / agreement contemplates an
arbitration clause. Since a dispute has arisen, the applicant sent notice to
invoke the arbitration clause.

12. In view of above and with the consent of the parties, this Court
                                                                                             ARCO No. 32 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    proposes, the name of Shri Bipin Kumar Pandey (A/B 0206/2012)
                                    learned Advocate of this Court, who is present in Court and has given his
                                    consent to act as an Arbitrator in the case.

                                    13. Accordingly, Mr. Bipin Kumar Pandey (A/B 0206/2012), Advocate
                                    of this Court, resident of 18/18, Stanley Road, Judges Colony, City &
                                    District - Prayagraj (UP), Mobile No. 9415646147 (e-mail ID
                                    [email protected]), is appointed as sole Arbitrator in order
                                    to resolve the disputes between the parties, in the present case.

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

                                    15. With the aforesaid direction, the present arbitration application stands
                                    disposed of.

                                    16. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator.



                                                                                           (Piyush Agrawal,J.)
                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Rahul Dwivedi/-




Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad