HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 43 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Jalaj Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This Court has passed the following order on 19.09.2025:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks appointment of a sole arbitrator. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent, in terms whereof the respondent was to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month as rent, with an enhancement of 10% every five years. The said agreement was for a period commencing from 06.04.2010 till 05.04.2030. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has not paid the rent after entering into the agreement beyond a period of three months. It is further stated that the petitioner had earlier filed a civil suit wherein the respondent had raised a plea under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereafter the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, in Regular Suit No.2063 of 2018 "Karamchandra Patel vs. Sachiv, Indian Indus Tawor Limited", passed an order on 31.05.2024 relegating the parties to arbitration. Thereafter, the instant petition has been filed. The record indicates that notices were issued on 23.04.2025, and in response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submits that insofar as the existence of the arbitration clause is concerned, the same is not disputed. However, there are certain issues relating to the quantum, inasmuch as, according to the respondent, the agreement stood terminated, and beyond that, the respondent is not liable to pay the rent. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kaushal Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Jalaj Kumar Gupta Karam Chandra Patel .....Applicant(s) Sachiv, Indus Tawar Limited .....Opposite Party(s) Even otherwise, the plea of limitation is also to be raised. Having considered the aforesaid and noticing that the arbitration clause is contained in the agreement coupled with the fact that the civil court had also relegated the parties to arbitration, this Court finds that the matter can be referred for arbitration, leaving all contentious issues open to be raised and decided therein. Accordingly, this Court proposes the name of Shri Pritish Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General, Telephone No.0522-3557507, Mobile No.9839172121, Address: HIG 4/441, Vikas Nagar, Luckow, to be appointed as the sole arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to provide a complete set of the paper book to the proposed arbitrator so as to seek his consent in terms of 12 (5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. List this matter again on 15.10.2025 for further orders. " 3. In response to the aforesaid order, the office has reported on 27.10.2025 that the proposed arbitrator has notified his consent by means of his letter dated 27.10.2025. 4. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 5. Shri Pritish Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General of State of U.P. is appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes arising out an agreement between the parties. November 4, 2025 -Amit K- ARBT No. 43 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench