CENTRAL ELECTRONICS LIMITEDversusSECRETARY AND CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 69 of 2026

Central Electronics Limited
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

Secretary And Chief Project Officer And Another
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)         : Rahul Chaudhary, Rohit Chawdhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)    : Bipin Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC
for the State and Mr. Shreyash Agrawal, learned counsel for UPNEDA-
respondent no.1.

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 agreements dated
17.05.2016 and 03.06.2016 were executed between the parties for supply,
installation, commissioning and maintenance of Solar Water Pumping
Systems. The applicant completed the work and a Completion Certificate
dated 07.01.2021 was issued, however, an amount of Rs. 1,51,51,636/-
towards Central Subsidy remained unpaid. Therefore in pursuance of the
agreement, arbitration notices were sent by the applicant on 25.08.2025 and
27.01.2026. Hence the present application has been filed for appointment of
new Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996.

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
                                                                   ARCO No. 69 of 2026
                                    2


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
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 Mr. Justice Rajesh Tondon, Former Judge of
Uttarakhand High Court, R/o 19, High Court Judges Colony, Sector
105, NOIDA (Mob. No.9412087666, 9999306069), to act as an
                                                                                                 ARCO No. 69 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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,
                                    within a week.



                                                                                           (Piyush Agrawal,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Abhishek Gupta




Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad