HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 155 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. The present application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an arbitrator for deciding the dispute and differences between the parties arising out of five work orders detailed in para 7 of the affidavit. 2. In none of the work orders, there is any arbitration clause. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on Clause 5 of the work contract, which states that the other deductions apart from labour cess for which there is provision in Clause 4 would be as per the PWD Department Rules. On basis of the said clause, it is submitted that the General Conditions of Contract prescribed by PWD for contracts given by it, whereunder there is arbitration clause, would apply. 4. Sri Dhananjai Rai, Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Vibhu Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party, however, disputes the submission. He submits that there being no arbitration clause, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration. 5. Clause 5 of the work order only provides for other deductions being made as per PWD Department Rules. It would not make applicable the arbitration clause in the General Conditions of Contract prescribed by PWD. As such, the objection of counsel for the opposite party is upheld. 6. In absence of any arbitration agreement, the application is held to be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shreya Dwivedi, Shubham Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Vibhu Rai M/S Sincere Construction Through Its Proprietor Mr. Ved Prakash Yadav .....Applicant(s) Prayagraj Development Authority (Pda) .....Opposite Party(s) not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, rejected. September 19, 2025 Ankit. ARCO No. 155 of 2025 2 (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad