Trading Engineering (International) Ltd. Through Its Irp Mahipal Singh (Authorized Agent) v. Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation Limited Thru. Chairman

1. Heard Sri Suryansh Narula, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Eshita Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. On 24.09.2025, this Court had passed the following order:- "1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 whereby this Court on 26.09.2023 had passed the following order which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of the instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks substitution of the Arbitrator. The submission is that by means of the order dated 22.10.2020, this Court had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar (Retd), Judge of this Court to act as an Arbitrator. However, while the proceedings were pending before the Arbitral Tribunal on account of subsequent assignment being accepted by the sole Arbitrator, he passed an order dated 16.08.2022 to withdraw from the said proceedings. It is thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, how the instant petition 2 ARCO No. 8 of 2023 would be maintainable when first exhausting the remedy as provided in the Rules which governed a party for appointment of an Arbitrator in the first place. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some short time to respond to the aforesaid. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter on 04.10.2023, as fresh. "

2. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Court on 04.10.2023, the Court passed the following order which reads as under:- "Ms. Ishita Bhaseen, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and she submits that she requires time to file vakalatnama and also seek instructions in the matter. She candidly agrees that insofar as the arbitration clause is concerned, it is not disputed and once an arbitrator had already been appointed, apparently, there can be no difficulty in appointing the substitute arbitrator. However, concurring for a mutually acceptable name, she seeks time to update her instructions. On her request, list this matter on 17.10.2023. "

3. Thereafter the matter has been listed on several occasions but could not be taken up and finally on 14.07.2025, the Court passed the following order which read as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Eshita Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent has sent an illness slip. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on several occasions, the matter has been adjourned at the behest of the counsel for the respondent. Considering the aforesaid and noticing that the petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter. List this matter again on 23rd of July, 2015. In case if the learned counsel for the respondent has any difficulty, she shall make an alternate arrangement. " 3 ARCO No. 8 of 2023

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop when the matter was taken up today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had served on the respondent a notice dated 16.10.2022 whereby the certain names were suggested for appointment of a proposed Arbitrator. It has also been pointed out that though the notice was received by the respondent, however, they did not give their consent. The receiving of the said notice dated 16.10.2022 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that she earlier had taken time to seek instructions which have not been received.

6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the earlier Arbitrator was appointed by the Court but later recused himself on 20.08.2022 on account of being engaged with some assignment. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the application for substitute Arbitrator has been filed.

7. From the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner had sent a notice dated 16.10.2022 which as per the respondent has not been denied but the fact remains that no consent was given as such the appointment procedure failed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant petition has been filed.

8. Since the recusal of the earlier Arbitrator post 20.08.2022, notice dated 16.10.2022 was sent to the respondent, hence an attempt had been made by the petitioner go get an Arbitrator appointed which failed, hence this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma, Former Judge of this Court, R/o 10/2, A.P.Sen Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9455555660 to act as an Arbitrator.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall submit the entire paper book with the office of this Court within a week from today which shall be forwarded to the proposed Arbitrator for seeking the consent of the proposed arbitrator in terms of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. List this matter on 30th of October, for further orders"

3. In furtherance of the aforesaid order, the proposed arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma (retired) has communicated his consent through letter dated 14.11.2025. 4 ARCO No. 8 of 2023

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

5. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma (retired) is appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties arising out of contract dated 27.03.2015.

6. Office is directed to communicate this order to the arbitrator. December 2, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Suryansh Narula, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Eshita Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. On 24.09.2025, this Court had passed the following order:- "1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 whereby this Court on 26.09.2023 had passed the following order which reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of the instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner seeks substitution of the Arbitrator. The submission is that by means of the order dated 22.10.2020, this Court had appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar (Retd), Judge of this Court to act as an Arbitrator. However, while the proceedings were pending before the Arbitral Tribunal on account of subsequent assignment being accepted by the sole Arbitrator, he passed an order dated 16.08.2022 to withdraw from the said proceedings. It is thereafter that the petitioner has approached this Court. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, how the instant petition 2 ARCO No. 8 of 2023 would be maintainable when first exhausting the remedy as provided in the Rules which governed a party for appointment of an Arbitrator in the first place. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for some short time to respond to the aforesaid. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list this matter on 04.10.2023, as fresh. "

2. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the Court on 04.10.2023, the Court passed the following order which reads as under:- "Ms. Ishita Bhaseen, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and she submits that she requires time to file vakalatnama and also seek instructions in the matter. She candidly agrees that insofar as the arbitration clause is concerned, it is not disputed and once an arbitrator had already been appointed, apparently, there can be no difficulty in appointing the substitute arbitrator. However, concurring for a mutually acceptable name, she seeks time to update her instructions. On her request, list this matter on 17.10.2023. "

3. Thereafter the matter has been listed on several occasions but could not be taken up and finally on 14.07.2025, the Court passed the following order which read as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Miss. Eshita Bhasin, learned counsel for the respondent has sent an illness slip. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on several occasions, the matter has been adjourned at the behest of the counsel for the respondent. Considering the aforesaid and noticing that the petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is not inclined to adjourn the matter. List this matter again on 23rd of July, 2015. In case if the learned counsel for the respondent has any difficulty, she shall make an alternate arrangement. " 3 ARCO No. 8 of 2023

4. It is in the aforesaid backdrop when the matter was taken up today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had served on the respondent a notice dated 16.10.2022 whereby the certain names were suggested for appointment of a proposed Arbitrator. It has also been pointed out that though the notice was received by the respondent, however, they did not give their consent. The receiving of the said notice dated 16.10.2022 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that she earlier had taken time to seek instructions which have not been received.

6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the earlier Arbitrator was appointed by the Court but later recused himself on 20.08.2022 on account of being engaged with some assignment. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the application for substitute Arbitrator has been filed.

7. From the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner had sent a notice dated 16.10.2022 which as per the respondent has not been denied but the fact remains that no consent was given as such the appointment procedure failed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant petition has been filed.

8. Since the recusal of the earlier Arbitrator post 20.08.2022, notice dated 16.10.2022 was sent to the respondent, hence an attempt had been made by the petitioner go get an Arbitrator appointed which failed, hence this Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma, Former Judge of this Court, R/o 10/2, A.P.Sen Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9455555660 to act as an Arbitrator.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall submit the entire paper book with the office of this Court within a week from today which shall be forwarded to the proposed Arbitrator for seeking the consent of the proposed arbitrator in terms of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

10. List this matter on 30th of October, for further orders"

3. In furtherance of the aforesaid order, the proposed arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma (retired) has communicated his consent through letter dated 14.11.2025. 4 ARCO No. 8 of 2023

4. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

5. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Verma (retired) is appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties arising out of contract dated 27.03.2015.

6. Office is directed to communicate this order to the arbitrator. December 2, 2025 Anurag (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench