HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 32 of 2026 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 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 for the applicant submits that a franchisee agreement dated 28.5.2025 was executed between the parties and clause 17 of the agreement contains the arbitration clause. He submits that some dispute arose between the parties, therefore, the applicant had invoked the arbitration clause by sending notice to the opposite party but no consented arbitrator could be appointed. 4. The submissions of the counsel for the applicant was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite parties but the existence of dispute has not been denied by the counsel for the opposite party therefore, he also consented for resolving the dispute between the parties by the Arbitrator appointed by this Court. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Kumar Chaurasiya M/S Nexgen Energia Limited And Another .....Applicant(s) M/S Sumit Beverages (License) And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 brought before it, within limitation. 9. 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. 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. Perusal of the record shows that contract / agreement contemplates an arbitration clause. Since a dispute has arisen, the applicant sent notice to invoke the arbitration clause. 12. In view of above and with the consent of the parties, this Court ARCO No. 32 of 2026 2 proposes, the name of Shri Bipin Kumar Pandey (A/B 0206/2012) learned Advocate of this Court, who is present in Court and has given his consent to act as an Arbitrator in the case. 13. Accordingly, Mr. Bipin Kumar Pandey (A/B 0206/2012), Advocate of this Court, resident of 18/18, Stanley Road, Judges Colony, City & District - Prayagraj (UP), Mobile No. 9415646147 (e-mail ID advbipinkrpandey@gmail.com), is appointed as sole Arbitrator in order to resolve the disputes between the parties, in the present case. 14. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to his fees and expenses in accordance with the fourth Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 15. With the aforesaid direction, the present arbitration application stands disposed of. 16. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator. May 18, 2026 Rahul Dwivedi/- ARCO No. 32 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad