M/S Dixit Iron Stores, Through Its Propreitor, Sri Ramesh Kumar Dixit v. Chief Material Manager, North Zone, Railway Head Quarters, Baroda House, New Delhi, And 2

submissions of Sri Abhinav Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, the learned counsel for the respondents: "1. Heard Shri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Singh Royekwar for the respondents.

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

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in furtherance of an e-auction held on 17.01.2023 for the sale of Scrap, the petitioner had participated, and his bid was found favourable. The petitioner was required to lift the scrap material between 8th to 10th of March, 2023. This was rent free period. However, scrap could have been lifted subsequently but that was subject to payment for ground rent of 0.50% of the scrap amount. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the delivery note, the delivery could only have been effected in the presence of three officials of the respondents and one representative of the petitioner.

4. It is stated that the representative of the petitioner met with an accident on

08.03.2023 and remained hospitalized till 13.03.2023, however, that fact apart, the delivery itself could not be made since one official of the respondent was not present as would be evident from the joint report which has been brought on record as annexure no.7 dated 09.03.2023.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had written to the respondents 2 ARBT No. 87 of 2023 for permitting him to lift the scrap material without charging the ground rent since the period as initially agreed between 8th to 10th of March, 2023, could not be materialized for the factor that one official of the respondent and the representative of the petitioner were not available. However, this was not considered rather the respondents went ahead to get the same lot re-auctioned and the 3rd parties who had appeared in the said subsequent auction were granted the permission to lift and that too without any ground charges. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner had written to the respondents calling in for appointment of an Arbitrator. However, the same was rejected by means of a letter dated 24.11.2023.

6. It is urged that the letter of rejection regarding the demand for arbitration was based on two grounds:- (i) that the notice had been sent by a counsel and not by the petitioner itself and there was no power of attorney, affidavit or any authority letter in favour of the Advocate to indicate whether he was authorized to call in for arbitration or not; (ii) Reference was made to clause 2903 ii (A) of the conditions of contract to state that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have given details regarding his claims and since the said letter invoking the jurisdiction did not meet the aforesaid conditions, hence the demand for referring the matter for arbitration was turned down.It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Shri Royekwar, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the petition on the premise that the petitioner is merely a sole Proprietorship Firm which is nothing but a trade name and without bringing on record the sole proprietor himself the petition cannot be entertained. He has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Svapn Constructions Vs IDPL Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd & others, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392 to buttress his submissions that the petition itself is not maintainable.

8. It has also been urged that the notice calling in for arbitration was also defective and it did not comply with clause 2903 and for the said reason the petition itself is bad and deserves to be rejected.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

10. In so far as the first objection regarding the maintainability of the petition is concerned, if examined would indicate that the petitioner while filing the petition has indicated the petitioner in following words which are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- 3 ARBT No. 87 of 2023 "M/s Dixit Iron Stores having its Registered Office at 76/570 Coolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur 208001 through its proprietor Sri Ramesh Kumar Dixit, Resident of 107/269, Braham Nagar, Kanpur, 208012"

11. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is abundantly clear that M/s Dixit Iron Stores which perhaps is the trade name is on record alongwith its proprietor Sri Ramesh Kumar Dixit, Resident of 107/269 Braham Nagar, Kanpur. Once the said sole proprietor has been clearly indicated, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the petition or that the petition has been filed only by or in the name of the firm name without the sole proprietor.

12. From the perusal of the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Svapn Constructions (supra), it does not indicate as to whether the sole proprietor in the case before the Delhi High Court was actually on record or not in any capacity hence the said decision does not come to the aid of the respondent.

13. Apparently, for the reasons as noticed above and the manner in which the firm is represented it cannot be said that there is any defect which may make the petition not maintainable on this ground hence the said submission of Shri Royekwar is turned down.

14. As far as the grounds for refusing the demand for appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, needless to say that the same is also untenable for the reason that the petitioner in its letter dated 15.09.2023 while invoking the arbitration clause had sufficiently indicated the controversy and also requested for appointment of Arbitrator. The respondents could not be a judge of its own cause and reject the request for appointment of Arbitrator. This apparently is reflective of the high- handedness of the respondent authorities.

15. This Court while exercising powers under section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 is primarily required to notice as to whether there is a subsisting arbitration clause between the parties, to which there is no dispute. The other aspect that needs to be noticed is whether the said arbitration clause has been appropriately invoked and for the reason noted above, the petitioner had sent a notice which clearly delineates the contentions as well as the cause for controversy, hence it cannot be said that the clause has not been appropriately invoked. The other aspect that the parties are before the correct jurisdictional High Court is also not in dispute, and the dispute relates to the year 2023 and is still live cannot be disputed. 4 ARBT No. 87 of 2023

16. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that it is a fit case for referring the matter for arbitration and consequently the Court provides that all contentious questions be left open to be raised and adjudicated before the Sole Arbitrator, thus subject to the aforesaid the Court proposes the name of Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge, R/o B/601, Rolex Estate, Faizabad Road, Kamta, Lucknow- Pin-226028, Mobile No.9412546299 to act as an Arbitrator.

17. 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.

18. List this matter on 29th of October, 2025 for further orders."

3. The proposed Arbitrator has signified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties through letter dated 04.10.2025.

4. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge, R/o B/601, Rolex Estate, Faizabad Road, Kamta, Lucknow-Pin-226028, Mobile No.9412546299 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 17.01.2023 between the parties.

5. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge. October 29, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

submissions of Sri Abhinav Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, the learned counsel for the respondents: "1. Heard Shri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Singh Royekwar for the respondents.

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

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in furtherance of an e-auction held on 17.01.2023 for the sale of Scrap, the petitioner had participated, and his bid was found favourable. The petitioner was required to lift the scrap material between 8th to 10th of March, 2023. This was rent free period. However, scrap could have been lifted subsequently but that was subject to payment for ground rent of 0.50% of the scrap amount. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the delivery note, the delivery could only have been effected in the presence of three officials of the respondents and one representative of the petitioner.

4. It is stated that the representative of the petitioner met with an accident on

08.03.2023 and remained hospitalized till 13.03.2023, however, that fact apart, the delivery itself could not be made since one official of the respondent was not present as would be evident from the joint report which has been brought on record as annexure no.7 dated 09.03.2023.

5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had written to the respondents 2 ARBT No. 87 of 2023 for permitting him to lift the scrap material without charging the ground rent since the period as initially agreed between 8th to 10th of March, 2023, could not be materialized for the factor that one official of the respondent and the representative of the petitioner were not available. However, this was not considered rather the respondents went ahead to get the same lot re-auctioned and the 3rd parties who had appeared in the said subsequent auction were granted the permission to lift and that too without any ground charges. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner had written to the respondents calling in for appointment of an Arbitrator. However, the same was rejected by means of a letter dated 24.11.2023.

6. It is urged that the letter of rejection regarding the demand for arbitration was based on two grounds:- (i) that the notice had been sent by a counsel and not by the petitioner itself and there was no power of attorney, affidavit or any authority letter in favour of the Advocate to indicate whether he was authorized to call in for arbitration or not; (ii) Reference was made to clause 2903 ii (A) of the conditions of contract to state that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have given details regarding his claims and since the said letter invoking the jurisdiction did not meet the aforesaid conditions, hence the demand for referring the matter for arbitration was turned down.It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court.

7. Shri Royekwar, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the petition on the premise that the petitioner is merely a sole Proprietorship Firm which is nothing but a trade name and without bringing on record the sole proprietor himself the petition cannot be entertained. He has relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Svapn Constructions Vs IDPL Employees Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd & others, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1392 to buttress his submissions that the petition itself is not maintainable.

8. It has also been urged that the notice calling in for arbitration was also defective and it did not comply with clause 2903 and for the said reason the petition itself is bad and deserves to be rejected.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

10. In so far as the first objection regarding the maintainability of the petition is concerned, if examined would indicate that the petitioner while filing the petition has indicated the petitioner in following words which are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:- 3 ARBT No. 87 of 2023 "M/s Dixit Iron Stores having its Registered Office at 76/570 Coolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur 208001 through its proprietor Sri Ramesh Kumar Dixit, Resident of 107/269, Braham Nagar, Kanpur, 208012"

11. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is abundantly clear that M/s Dixit Iron Stores which perhaps is the trade name is on record alongwith its proprietor Sri Ramesh Kumar Dixit, Resident of 107/269 Braham Nagar, Kanpur. Once the said sole proprietor has been clearly indicated, it cannot be said that there is any defect in the petition or that the petition has been filed only by or in the name of the firm name without the sole proprietor.

12. From the perusal of the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents in Svapn Constructions (supra), it does not indicate as to whether the sole proprietor in the case before the Delhi High Court was actually on record or not in any capacity hence the said decision does not come to the aid of the respondent.

13. Apparently, for the reasons as noticed above and the manner in which the firm is represented it cannot be said that there is any defect which may make the petition not maintainable on this ground hence the said submission of Shri Royekwar is turned down.

14. As far as the grounds for refusing the demand for appointment of Arbitrator is concerned, needless to say that the same is also untenable for the reason that the petitioner in its letter dated 15.09.2023 while invoking the arbitration clause had sufficiently indicated the controversy and also requested for appointment of Arbitrator. The respondents could not be a judge of its own cause and reject the request for appointment of Arbitrator. This apparently is reflective of the high- handedness of the respondent authorities.

15. This Court while exercising powers under section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 is primarily required to notice as to whether there is a subsisting arbitration clause between the parties, to which there is no dispute. The other aspect that needs to be noticed is whether the said arbitration clause has been appropriately invoked and for the reason noted above, the petitioner had sent a notice which clearly delineates the contentions as well as the cause for controversy, hence it cannot be said that the clause has not been appropriately invoked. The other aspect that the parties are before the correct jurisdictional High Court is also not in dispute, and the dispute relates to the year 2023 and is still live cannot be disputed. 4 ARBT No. 87 of 2023

16. Thus for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that it is a fit case for referring the matter for arbitration and consequently the Court provides that all contentious questions be left open to be raised and adjudicated before the Sole Arbitrator, thus subject to the aforesaid the Court proposes the name of Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge, R/o B/601, Rolex Estate, Faizabad Road, Kamta, Lucknow- Pin-226028, Mobile No.9412546299 to act as an Arbitrator.

17. 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.

18. List this matter on 29th of October, 2025 for further orders."

3. The proposed Arbitrator has signified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties through letter dated 04.10.2025.

4. Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed. Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge, R/o B/601, Rolex Estate, Faizabad Road, Kamta, Lucknow-Pin-226028, Mobile No.9412546299 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract dated 17.01.2023 between the parties.

5. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Shri Mohd. Shareef, Retd. Additional District Judge. October 29, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench