[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Chaurasia vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 29 January, 2026
Author: Piyush Agrawal
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:20147
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 43 of 2025
WITH
ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 42 of 2025
Ashok Kumar Chaurasia
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ankit Shukla, Gulrez Khan, Javed Husain Khan, Rajeev Ratan Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since the issues involved in these applications are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Arbitration & Consolidation Application No. 43 of 2025 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in these revisions.
Arbitration & Consolidation Application No. 43 of 2025:
3. Rejoinder affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
4. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 31.01.2019, the applicant entered into a contract with the opposite party for construction of Sevait Ismailganj Road to approach road maintenance and patching. The work started on 31.01.2019 and completed within time. Thereafter, final bill was prepared, but an amount of Rs. 15,79,484/- has not been paid by the PWD Department. The applicant gave several letters for payment of the bill amount, but in vain. On 02.09.2024, a notice/letter was issued to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause; however, the respondent failed to respond to the same. Hence, this application.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact about the existence of dispute between the parties.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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.
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. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Shri Abrar Ahmad, Advocate (AOR No. A/A 0094/2012), resident of 29, Radha Kunj Sector, Kalindipuram, City & District - Prayagraj (U.P), Mobile No. 9415317920 (e-mail ID:abraradvocate71 @gmail.com), who is present in the Court and has given his consent, to act as an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties involved in both the ARCO Nos. 43 of 2025 and 42 of 2025. 13. The Arbitrator shall be entitled to his fees and expenses in accordance with the fourth Schedule to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.
14. In view of the above, both the present arbitration applications stand allowed.
15. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator.
(Piyush Agrawal,J.)
January 29, 2026
Amit Mishra
