HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 120 of 2026 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Jain, through V.C. for the applicant, who has been identified by Mr. Divendu Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that despite the commodities having been duly and timely procured and supplied by the applicant, the respondent deliberately and intentionally failed to clear the invoices raised by the applicant in terms of the agreement. He further submits that the applicant was, therefore, constrained to issue a demand notice calling upon the respondent to clear the total outstanding amount towards the invoices. The applicant thereafter issued a legal notice for foreclosure and enforcement of the mortgage, whereby the respondent was once again called upon to pay the outstanding amount within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice. He further submits that the respondent in its reply to the arbitration notice, merely made mechanical and blanket denials to each and every paragraph thereof. He further submits that despite receipt of the rejoinder dated 27.05.2026, the respondent has neither confirmed the appointment of Mr. Dhairya Gupta nor proposed any alternative name within the stipulated period of seven days, or at all. He further submits that the period of 30 days stipulated in the arbitration notice has also expired. Learned counsel further submits Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Divendu Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aryatech Platforms Private Limited .....Applicant(s) Vardhman Solvent Extraction Industries Limited .....Opposite Party(s) that the mechanism for mutual appointment of an arbitrator contemplated under Clause 9.2 of the Agreement having failed, the applicant has no option but to approach this Court. Hence, the present application. 4. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the scope of the present proceedings under Section 11 of the Act does not require any elaboration in view of that position in law having been made crystal clear by a recent three judge decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman, Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2019, decided on 05.09.2019 in which it has been held as below: "This being the position, it is clear that the law prior to the 2015 Amendment that has been laid down by this Court, which would have included going into whether accord and satisfaction has taken place, has now been legislatively overruled. This being the position, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgment as Section 11(6A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment Duro Felguera, S.A. (supra) -- see paras 48 & 59." 6. While laying down that law, the Supreme Court had itself referred to paragraph nos. 48 & 59 of its earlier decision in the case of Duro Felguera, S.A. Vs. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729. 7. That position in law has been reiterated in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 192. 8. In the facts of the present case, on prima facie basis, it has to be accepted that there exists an arbitration clause, between the parties. Also, it is clear that the parties have not been able to appoint consented arbitrator and therefore, the appointing authority has to be assumed by this Court upon the present application. 9. At the same time, no final conclusion is being drawn as may affect the ARCO No. 120 of 2026 2 merits of the claim. That matter would remain to be considered by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage, upon claim, objection, challenge or appeal being filed. Thus, amongst others it would remain open to the opposite party to raise all objections as the Act permits. 10. Leaving that course completely open to the respective parties, at present, only a forum is being provided for adjudication of a claim proposed to be raised and resisted, in accordance with the law. 11. Accordingly, this Court appoints the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta, a Former Judge of this Court, resident of Tower 8, Type-7, Floor 6, NBCC Building, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi (Mob No.9415215086) (Email ID: justicedgupta@gamil.com) to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties. 12. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to the fee in accordance as may be agreed between the parties and the learned Arbitrator. 13. The present arbitration application stands allowed. 14. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator through all permissible modes, including the electronic modes. September 29, 2026 A.N. Mishra ARCO No. 120 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad