HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 39 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Amrit Khare, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. On 12.09.2025 this court had passed the following order: "1. Heard Sri Amrit Khare learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent. 2. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner and the respondents had entered into an agreement dated 25.04.2018 for supplies of food supplement to the respondent. In the said agreement Clause 1.13 relates to settlement of disputes. However, it further provided that in case of any dispute between the parties, an attempt should be made to arrive at an amicable settlement, however, in case, if it fails then the party could invoke the arbitration clause for appointment of sole arbitrator to be appointed with consensus, failing which, the Principal Secretary, Law Government of U.P would appoint the said sole Arbitrator. 4. Submission is that there were certain outstanding payment which were not paid by the respondent and despite request and demand, it did not evoke any response, consequently, the petitioner by means of the demand notice dated 13.06.2024 had required the respondent to appoint a sole Arbitrator and also suggested the name of former Judge of this Court and sought consent of the respondent so that the Arbitral Tribunal be constituted at the earliest. 5. It is urged that the said notice was received by the respondent, however, they did not respond, as a result the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court. 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for the State has submitted that as far as amount is concerned i.e the disputed. The arbitration clause has not been appropriately invoked and in the aforesaid circumstances, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Akshay Kumar Singh, Amrit Khare Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C. M/S Nilgiri Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, Mr. Amit Agarwal .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Department Of Baal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahaar, Lucknow And Another .....Opposite Party(s) the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned Additional Chief counsel has urged that since there are no bar codes on the envelop, accordingly, it is very difficult to say whether the said notices were received or not. 8. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 9. In so far as certain facts are concerned, there is no dispute between the parties which inter alia are: (i) An agreement was entered between the parties dated 25.04.2018 and it is also not disputed that the said agreement contained an arbitration clause. (ii) As far as the letter by which demand was made dated 13.06.2024 is not disputed and that certain outstanding dues are the subject matter of disputes. 10. As far as the notice dated 16.10.2024 is concerned, it is stated by the State counsel that they are not received it. 11. Be that as it may, the petitioner has brought on record the tracking report which prima facie indicates that the notice has been served. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts that they are live disputes between the parties the arbitration clause is admitted. Moreover, the Clause 1.13 envisages the appointment of an Arbitrator, however, the right of the State to appoint the sole Arbitrator is de-hors the provisions of Section 12(5) read with the Schedule V and VII of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the State cannot appoint an Arbitrator. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it is a fit case for appointment of a sole Arbitrator, leaving all contentions issues open to be raised before the sole Arbitrator. 14. Accordingly, this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar, (a Former Judge of this Court), resident of 5/501, Deepak Delux, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow, (U.P) Mobile No.9415286898, to act as an Arbitrator. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall provide a complete set of the paper book to be sent to the proposed Arbitrator to seek his consent under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 16. List on 27.10.2025 for further orders." 3. The proposed Arbitrator has signified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties through letter dated 15.11.2025, which is accompanied by disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1)(b) and VIth and VIIth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1995. 4. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar, (a Former Judge of this Court), resident of 5/501, Deepak Delux, Sahara Grace, Jankipuram, Lucknow, (U.P) Mobile No.9415286898 is hereby appointed as ARBT No. 39 of 2025 2 an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 25.04.2018. 5. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anurag Kumar, (a Former Judge of this Court). November 27, 2025 Ram. ARBT No. 39 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench