HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 96 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 the applicant is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. He submits that the opposite party has invited bids for designing supply of erection, civil works, testing and commissioning of 400/220/132/kv GIS Sub Station on an EPC basis at Basti, Uttar Pradesh in which the applicant being the successful bidder awarded the contract and in pursuance thereof an agreement was signed between the parties on 26.12.2018. He submits that in January, 2019, the applicant after completing the pre-construction activities, has requested the respondent to issue Form V (Labour License) so that work force could be deployed at the side and in pursuance thereof FORM V has been issued on 4.7.2019 extending the period of 6 month. He submits that in the meantime, due to COVID 19 pandemic the construction could not be completed, therefore, the applicant again applied for extension of time on 4.7.2020, which was allowed but the respondent issued a letter on 10.7.2023 stating that there was total delay of 776 days in completing the project to which the applicant responded through letter dated 1.8.2023 stating that due to the said delay, the applicant was suffered financial cost of Rs. 14.73 cr. and thereafter again sent a letter dated 13.9.2023 requesting to release the retention amount of Rs. 16.87 Cr. Thereafter some dispute arose between the parties and the applicant raised total claim of Rs. 33,99,08,572/- under the various heads arising out of contract agreement which was rejected by the respondent on 16.1.2025. Aggrieved to the said rejection, the applicant issued notice dated 11.2.2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act invoking arbitration clause no. 38 of the contract agreement but no consented arbitrator could be appointed by the parties. Hence the present application. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kundan Rai, Uday Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Pranjal Mehrotra Tata Projects Limited A Company .....Applicant(s) Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited .....Opposite Party(s) submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the applicant utterly failed to adhere to the contractual timelines and the project suffered inordinate delays solely due to the applicant's poor project management, slow mobilization of resources and failure to execute the work with due diligence. However, learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute 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 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. ARCO No. 96 of 2026 2 11. Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, (a Former Judge of the Supreme Court), resident of R-29, Ground Floor, South Extension - II, New Delhi - 110 049, Mobile No. 9415216238 (Email ID: officeofhmjpankajmithal@gmail.com), is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator, who shall adjudicate the matter and settle all the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. 12. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to his fees and expenses as may be agreed between the parties. 13. In view of the above, the present arbitration application stands disposed of. 14. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator through normal mode as well as e- mail. September 24, 2026 Rahul Dwivedi/- ARCO No. 96 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad