HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 68 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. However, from a perusal of the material on record, it reveals that the petitioner and the respondents had entered in an agreement dated 01.09.2024 and internal page no.11 of the agreement clause (p) provides for Arbitration Clause and for the sake of convenience the same is being reproduced hereinafter: "(p) If any difference of opinion/dispute arises between the owner and the conductor regarding the interpretation or implementation of this Agreement thereof the decision of the Owner shall be final and binding upon the Conductor. Provided that the if any disputes arise out of this Agreement, the same shall be referred to the Arbitration and the Mr. Vijayant Nigam as the sole Arbitrator, as per the provision of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision of the sole Arbitrator shall be final in this regard and binding upon the parties. The Arbitration proceedings would be conducted in the jurisdiction of Lucknow only. The courts of Lucknow shall have exclusive jurisdiction, for matters relating to the execution of such an arbitral award. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties to the extent permitted by law and either party may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement of the such award." Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sri Shailendra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Agarwal Kashish Sinha .....Applicant(s) M/S Resova Club Aroma Thru. Partners And Others .....Opposite Party(s) From a perusal of the said clause, it appears that the parties had agreed to refer their disputes to named sole Arbitrator. At this stage, a specific query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether he has put the said Arbitrator to notice regarding entering into the reference as disputes have emerged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he has written letters to the respondents but no letter is directed or addressed to the named sole Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, where the Arbitrator is already appointed the instant petition is not maintainable and the petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to take recourse as may be available to him law. September 24, 2025 Harshita ARBT No. 68 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench