A-One Poly Pipes And Fittings (P) Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Mr. Sudip Kumar Jain v. Engineer In Chief

1. Heard Ms. Satya Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.

2. On 02.09.2025, this Court had passed the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Hargovind Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state- respondents.

2. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an agreement was entered between the parties on 28.11.2020. The said agreement in clause 35, contained an arbitration clause.

4. It is urged that the petitioners had to made supplies till 01st of January, 2021, however, there was certain glitches on which account the petitioner had sought extension of time.

5. It is also urged that supplies had to be made after the inspection was made by the respondent-authorities. The inspection came to be done on 02.02.2021 whereafter the entire supplies were made by the petitioner on 04.02.2021 and even otherwise the time for supply had been extended till 11.02.2021.

6. In this view of the matter, the supplies were made within the extended time agreed 2 ARBT No. 100 of 2024 between the parties and when the turn came to make the payment, they refused. This had given rise to disputes emerging from the agreement and the petitioner by means of notice dated 07.08.2024 had invoked the arbitration clause, though, the said notice was received by the respondents but no cooperation was extended for appointment of the sole Arbitrator. It is in this backdrop that the instant petition has been filed.

7. Sri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petition is bad, inasmuch as, the notice invoking the jurisdiction of arbitration is not valid.

8. His contentions is that the notice does not indicate the cause of action. It also does not indicate the amount as claimed nor refers to the clauses of the agreement and for the said reason not only the notice is bad even this petition preferred is bad in law.

9. Sri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Nortel Networks and Private Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738.

10. Having considered the aforesaid judgment, the proposition therein is not disputed, however, the same is not applicable to the instant case, inasmuch as, the issue before the Apex Court was in respect of limitation regarding claims to be invoked as per arbitration and it has nothing to say regarding the invocation of the arbitration clause in terms of the Section 21 of the 1996 Act.

11. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record. As far as the notice is concerned which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1, it clearly refers to clause 35 of the agreement for invoking the arbitration. It also mentions that there are disputes between the parties and the request for appointment of an Arbitrator.

12. The very fact that the respondent received the said notice but did not make any further communication is also indicative of the fact that it was never informed to the petitioner what mistake was being harboured by the respondents and what details were required to enable the respondents to make up its mind as to whether there exists any dispute or not.

13. Since no response was sent and they sat pretty on the said notice and now at this stage, the said objection is being taken, this Court finds that the same has no substance and is accordingly turned down. The arbitration clause is not disputed. The parties are before the correct jurisdictional High Court as well as the facts that live disputes are engaging the attention of the parties, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that it is a fit case to be referred for arbitration while leaving all contentious issues to be raised before the Arbitrator.

14. Accordingly, the Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava- 3 ARBT No. 100 of 2024 II (Retd. Judge of this Court), R/o B-5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 to act as an Arbitrator.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall provide a complete set of the paper-book to the office of this Court within a period of one week which shall be forwarded to the proposed arbitrator to seek his consent under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

16. List this matter on 07th October, 2025 for further orders."

3. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court) R/o B- 5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 has notified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated

28.11.2020 through letter dated 24.09.2025.

4. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court), resident of R/o B-5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 28.11.2020

5. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court). . November 6, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Ms. Satya Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent.

2. On 02.09.2025, this Court had passed the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Hargovind Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state- respondents.

2. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an agreement was entered between the parties on 28.11.2020. The said agreement in clause 35, contained an arbitration clause.

4. It is urged that the petitioners had to made supplies till 01st of January, 2021, however, there was certain glitches on which account the petitioner had sought extension of time.

5. It is also urged that supplies had to be made after the inspection was made by the respondent-authorities. The inspection came to be done on 02.02.2021 whereafter the entire supplies were made by the petitioner on 04.02.2021 and even otherwise the time for supply had been extended till 11.02.2021.

6. In this view of the matter, the supplies were made within the extended time agreed 2 ARBT No. 100 of 2024 between the parties and when the turn came to make the payment, they refused. This had given rise to disputes emerging from the agreement and the petitioner by means of notice dated 07.08.2024 had invoked the arbitration clause, though, the said notice was received by the respondents but no cooperation was extended for appointment of the sole Arbitrator. It is in this backdrop that the instant petition has been filed.

7. Sri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submits that the petition is bad, inasmuch as, the notice invoking the jurisdiction of arbitration is not valid.

8. His contentions is that the notice does not indicate the cause of action. It also does not indicate the amount as claimed nor refers to the clauses of the agreement and for the said reason not only the notice is bad even this petition preferred is bad in law.

9. Sri Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another v. Nortel Networks and Private Limited, (2021) 5 SCC 738.

10. Having considered the aforesaid judgment, the proposition therein is not disputed, however, the same is not applicable to the instant case, inasmuch as, the issue before the Apex Court was in respect of limitation regarding claims to be invoked as per arbitration and it has nothing to say regarding the invocation of the arbitration clause in terms of the Section 21 of the 1996 Act.

11. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record. As far as the notice is concerned which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1, it clearly refers to clause 35 of the agreement for invoking the arbitration. It also mentions that there are disputes between the parties and the request for appointment of an Arbitrator.

12. The very fact that the respondent received the said notice but did not make any further communication is also indicative of the fact that it was never informed to the petitioner what mistake was being harboured by the respondents and what details were required to enable the respondents to make up its mind as to whether there exists any dispute or not.

13. Since no response was sent and they sat pretty on the said notice and now at this stage, the said objection is being taken, this Court finds that the same has no substance and is accordingly turned down. The arbitration clause is not disputed. The parties are before the correct jurisdictional High Court as well as the facts that live disputes are engaging the attention of the parties, thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that it is a fit case to be referred for arbitration while leaving all contentious issues to be raised before the Arbitrator.

14. Accordingly, the Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava- 3 ARBT No. 100 of 2024 II (Retd. Judge of this Court), R/o B-5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 to act as an Arbitrator.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall provide a complete set of the paper-book to the office of this Court within a period of one week which shall be forwarded to the proposed arbitrator to seek his consent under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

16. List this matter on 07th October, 2025 for further orders."

3. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court) R/o B- 5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 has notified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated

28.11.2020 through letter dated 24.09.2025.

4. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court), resident of R/o B-5, Ravindra Palli, Alokpuri, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Mobile No.9415042400 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 28.11.2020

5. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Srivastava-II (Retd. Judge of this Court). . November 6, 2025 Preeti (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench