HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 106 of 2026 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Hariom Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Prashant Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the contract agreement was executed between the applicant and the respondent for carrying out earthwork and allied works under the DFCC Project. He further submits that the actual commencement of the work was delayed on account of monsoon and prevailing site conditions. It is further submitted that a second Purchase Order was issued by the respondent, pursuant to which the applicant was directed to shift its manpower and machinery to the site. The applicant duly completed the work and thereafter handed over the site to the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that despite completion of the work, the respondent issued a notice imposing liquidated damages of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter terminated the Letter of Acceptance. He further submits that no amicable settlement could be arrived at between the parties. It is further submitted that despite receipt of the applicant's notice invoking arbitration, the respondent failed to appoint its nominee arbitrator within the stipulated period of 30 days. Consequently, the respondent forfeited its right to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hariom Kamal Singh, Nand Kishore Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prashant Kumar Tripathi M/S Hari Narayan Rai .....Applicant(s) Ms Gmr Infrastructure Limited .....Opposite Party(s) appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract read with Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the present application has been preferred by the applicant seeking appointment of an arbitrator. 5. The aforesaid submission has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondent. 6. 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." 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. ARCO No. 106 of 2026 2 10. At the same time, no final conclusion is being drawn as may affect the 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. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, this Court appoints the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bala Krishna Narayana, a Former Judge of this Court, resident of 'Vindhya' 26/5, Muir Road, Prayagraj, (Mob No.9839175855) to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties. 13. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to the fee in accordance as may be agreed between the parties and the learned Arbitrator. 14. The present arbitration application stands allowed. 15. 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. 106 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad