Allahabad High Court

M/S SHREE GOPAL ENGINEERS AND CONTRATOR MAHARANA PRATAP NAGARversusCOMMANDER WORKS ENGINEERS MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Decided: 13 September 2026
Bench: PIYUSH AGRAWAL

Holding

The Court held that, on a prima facie basis, an arbitration agreement exists and, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it may appoint a sole arbitrator.

Summary

The applicant, M/S Shree Gopal Engineers, filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator against Commander Works Engineers, alleging non‑payment of work and cancellation of its contract by the respondent. The applicant alleged that despite invoking the arbitration clause, the respondent failed to respond. The Court examined the scope of Section 11(6) in light of the Supreme Court’s post‑2015 amendment jurisprudence (Mayavati Trading, Duro Felguera, GOQII Technologies) and held that the existence of an arbitration agreement can be determined without delving into accord and satisfaction. On a prima facie basis, the Court found an arbitration clause and, since the parties could not agree on an arbitrator, exercised its power to appoint Shri Amit Saxena as the arbitrator. The order limited itself to appointing the arbitrator and did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying dispute.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can appoint a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when the parties have failed to do so.
Whether the existence of an arbitration agreement can be established without examining accord and satisfaction under the post‑2015 amendment regime.
Whether the court’s appointment is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayavati Trading, Duro Felguera and GOQII Technologies.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 11
Arbitration agreement
Appointment of arbitrator
Civil engineering contract
Non‑payment dispute
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 92 of 2026

M/S Shree Gopal Engineers And Contrator
Maharana Pratap Nagar .....Applicant(s)
Versus

Commander Works Engineers Military Engineer
Services And Another .....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharm Vir Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Purnendu Kumar Singh, Ravi Prakash
Singh

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 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 the applicant is
authorized to deal with the civil engineer work. The applicant has been
allotted various contracts work after being enlistment with CWE,
Lucknow. He further submits that on 13.03.2024, the applicant moved a
complaint to the CWE, Agra detailing the atrocities committed by the
Assistant Garrison Engineer and Junior Engineer. It was also mentioned
that the applicant has not been sanctioned some payment of the work.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply on 09.07.2025. He further
submits that instead of making any enquiry, a letter was issued cancelling
the work of the petitioner with immediate effect, against which the
applicant submitted reply on 06.11.2025. On 28.11.2025, 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.
ARCO No. 92 of 2026
2

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
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
ARCO No. 92 of 2026
3

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

11. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Shri Amit Saxena,
Senior Advocate, resident of House No. 5-A, Minto Road, City & District
- Prayagraj (U.P), Mobile No. 9415214883 (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.

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 14, 2026
Amit Mishra

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…