HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 69 of 2026 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State and Mr. Shreyash Agrawal, learned counsel for UPNEDA- respondent no.1. 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 agreements dated 17.05.2016 and 03.06.2016 were executed between the parties for supply, installation, commissioning and maintenance of Solar Water Pumping Systems. The applicant completed the work and a Completion Certificate dated 07.01.2021 was issued, however, an amount of Rs. 1,51,51,636/- towards Central Subsidy remained unpaid. Therefore in pursuance of the agreement, arbitration notices were sent by the applicant on 25.08.2025 and 27.01.2026. Hence the present application has been filed for appointment of new Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact about the existence of dispute between the parties. 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rahul Chaudhary, Rohit Chawdhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Bipin Kumar Pandey, C.S.C. Central Electronics Limited .....Applicant(s) Secretary And Chief Project Officer And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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. This Court appoints Mr. Justice Rajesh Tondon, Former Judge of Uttarakhand High Court, R/o 19, High Court Judges Colony, Sector 105, NOIDA (Mob. No.9412087666, 9999306069), to act as an ARCO No. 69 of 2026 2 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, within a week. September 23, 2026 Abhishek Gupta ARCO No. 69 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad