HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 1 of 2024 With CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 15 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole Arbitrator. 3. There are two petitions and though the date for grant of work order is different but primarily the arbitration clause and the notice seeking Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vimal Kumar, Km. Vishwa Mohini Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vidya Dhar Upadhyay, Prateek Singh Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vimal Kumar, Km. Vishwa Mohini Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vidya Dhar Upadhyay, Prateek Singh Limit Engineers Through Its Sole Proprietor, Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ Rakesh Kumar Manager Prasad Gupta .....Applicant(s) Goel Builders (Construction Unit) Through Its Propreitor Mr. Amit Agarwal .....Opposite Party(s) Limit Engineers Through Its Sole Proprietor, Rakesh Kumar Gupta @ Rakesh Kumar Manager Prasad Gupta .....Applicant(s) Goel Builders (Construction Unit) Through Its Propreitor Mr. Amit Agarwal .....Opposite Party(s) appointment of Arbitrator is one in the same in both the matters, hence, both are being considered together. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that work orders were issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The time for completing the said work was 8 months. Clause 18 of the work order provided that in case of any dispute between the parties, the matter was to be referred to a panel of three Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties and the two party- nominated Arbitrators would appoint the third. For the ease of reference, Clause 18 of the Arbitration Act is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- " 18. Arbitration In case of any dispute or difference arising out of this contract the same shall be referred to Arbitration by a panel of three Arbitrators, one each to be appointed by either party and the third by the two Arbitrators so appointed. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such Arbitration. The Arbitration proceedings will be held in municipal limits of the city of Luknow." 5. It is the case of the petitioner that despite having completed the work, the amount which was required to be paid was not done, accordingly, the petitioner by means of letter dated 12th March, 2021 made a demand for release of funds. This was followed by another letter dated 01st April, 2022 and since no positive response came from the respondents, accordingly, the petitioner by means of notice dated 31.08.2022 invoked the arbitration clause. 6. It is urged that though the said notice was received by the respondent, however, they did not cooperate for constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the aforesaid petition and has submitted that the claims as raised by the petitioner is time barred, in as much as, the work order was dated 24th September, 2018 and the work period was 8 months which came to an end in the month of July, 2019 and since the invocation is of the year 2022, hence, the claims are barred. ARBT No. 1 of 2024 2 8. Be that as it may, the issue whether the claims are barred or not is something for the Arbitrator to adjudicate, however, interestingly what this Court finds is the fact that the Arbitration Clause clearly indicated that it would be a panel of three arbitrators, one to be nominated by each of the parties. 9. It is an admitted case that the petitioner has not nominated his own party Arbitrator. It is also to be noticed that the notice sent on 31.08.2022, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 13, there is no reference regarding the appointment of the party-named Abitrator and in this regard, the paragraph 15 in the notice is relevant which is being reproduced hereinafter: "15. यह िक मेरे मुविक्कल ने उपरोक्त कायर् वकर् आबर्र िदनांिकत 08.09.2018 के तहत िकया है उक्त वकर् आडर्र के पैरा-18 में यह प्रािवधान है िक िववाद की िस्थित में 3 आिबट्रेडस के माध्यम से िववाद का िनपटारा िकया जायेगा। िजसमें आप द्वारा व मेरे मुविक्कल द्वारा एक-एक आिबट्रेडसर् िनयुक्त िकया जायेगा और उक्त दोनों िनयुक्त आिबटुंबरों की सहमित से तीसरे आिबट्रेडसर् की िनयुिक्त की जायेगी तथा उक्त उपजे िववाद का िनपटारा आिबट्रेशन के माध्यम से िकया जायेगा।" 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid quoted paragraphs, it is clear that the where the petitioner himself has not appointed his own Arbitrator, there is lack of compliance on behalf of the petitioner himself which makes the petition not maintainable. Unless and until the petitioner complied with his own part, he could not have compelled the respondent to appoint their party-nominated Arbitrator and in case if the same did not reach fruition then the petition should have been under Section 11(4) of the Act and not under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that the petition is maintainable at this stage, it is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to invoke the Arbitration Clause appropriately and as provided in law. September 22, 2025 Asheesh ARBT No. 1 of 2024 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench