HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 125 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Vide order dated 28.07.2026, this Court permitted the applicant to serve the respondent by way of publication. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit of service has been filed intimating the Court that the steps have been taken and the notice has been served through publication. Despite service of notice upon the opposite party through publication, no body has put in appearance. Vide order dated 16.09.2026, the matter was adjourned on account of non-presence of the counsel for the opposite party with clear stipulation that in case no body appears on the date fixed, i.e., 30.09.2026, the matter shall be proceeded ex parte. Today, when the case is called out, neither any counter affidavit has been filed, nor anybody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party. 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 for the applicant submits that a Master Product & Service agreement was executed between the parties on 23.09.2020 by viture of which certain network hardware devices were procured by the respondent on lease from the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant raised bills for payment, but the same has not been paid in spite of several e-mails, reminders and requests, ultimately,a notice/letter was issued to the respondents invoking the arbitration clause; however, the respondents failed to respond to the same. Hence, this application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Varun Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Multifactor Limited Liability Partnership .....Applicant(s) Dlt Labs Technologies Private Limited .....Opposite Party(s) 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 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, Mobile No. 9415215086 (Email ID: justicedgupta@gmail.com), to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties. 12. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to his fees and expenses in accordance with the fourth Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 13. In view of the above, 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 30, 2026 Amit Mishra ARCO No. 125 of 2024 2 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad