RAMKY INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITEDversusPASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 77 of 2024

Ramky Infrastructure Limited
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :   Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :   Kartikeya Saran

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

1. Heard Shri Divyam Agarwal, along with Rakesh Kumar and Kshitiz
Jain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vinayak Rajan, holding
brief of Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. On 10.12.2025, learned counsel for the respondent was granted two
weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, on
10.12.2025 and 27.04.2026, the case was passed over on the request of
learned counsel for the respondent, but no counter affidavit was filed.

3. In view of the above, the right to file counter affidavit is seized.

4. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that an agreement was
executed between the parties on 18.09.2012 for providing some service.
The applicant successfully completed the work, but payment of Rs.
462.85 crores has been delayed. The applicant made several
representations for payment of the same, but no action has yet been
taken. Ultimately, on 26.05.2022, a notice/letter was issued to the
respondent invoking the arbitration clause; however, the respondent failed
to respond to the same. Hence, this application.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact about
the existence of dispute between the parties.
                                                          ARCO No. 77 of 2024
                               2


7. 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
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."

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Leaving that course completely open to the respective parties, at
present, only a forum is being provided for adjudication of a claim
                                                                                             ARCO No. 77 of 2024
                                                                   3


                                    proposed to be raised and resisted, in accordance with the law.

                                    13. With the consent of the parties, this Court proposes the name of Mr.
                                    Justice Rajesh Bindal, Retired Judge of Supreme Court of India, R/o 2,
                                    Akbar Road, New Delhi (Mob. No. 7347025001, E-mail-
                                    [email protected]), to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the
                                    disputes between the parties.

                                    14. The Registry is directed to obtain the consent of the proposed
                                    Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(8) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,
                                    1996.

                                    15. List on 06.07.2026 for further orders.



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




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