# M S Kalicharan Pandey & Company v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 207
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-11
- **Case number:** Arbitration And Conciliation Appl. U/S11(4) No. 33 of 2024
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-kalicharan-pandey-company-v-union-of-india-ors-54237
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2 All. M S Kalicharan Pandey & Company Vs. Union of India & Ors.
207
parties and the third arbitrator or the umpire being appointed by the two arbitrators, the parties fail
to appoint their arbitrators, an application under Section 11(6) of the Act is filed and a party
requests that it is not willing to bear the high cost of arbitration to be conducted by a panel of three
arbitrators and in order to reduce the costs, it requests appointment of a sole arbitrator, this Court
can accede to the request.

13. Accordingly, I propose the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. K. Mathur (Retd.), a former
Judge of this Court, resident of Flat No.- 203, Samiah Melrose Square, Vrindawan Colony, Sector
6C, Near C.N.G. Pump, Lucknow (U.P.) / 304, Radium Apartments, New Hyderabad, Lucknow,
U.P., Mobile Nos. 8004928876, 9717779924 to act as an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes
between the parties.

14. Office is directed to communicate this order to Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. K. Mathur for
obtaining his consent.

15. List after receipt of service.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 207
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Arbitration And Conciliation Appl. U/S11(4) No. 33 of 2024

M S Kalicharan Pandey & Company ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether, in exercise of powers u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High
Court is required to appoint a sole Arbitrator upon prima facie satisfaction of the existence of a valid
arbitration agreement between the parties and the failure of the parties to mutually agree upon such
appointment, without delving into the merits of the underlying dispute.

Headnotes
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 11(6) - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration
Agreement - Arbitration Clause - Appointing Authority - Scope of - The applicant, invoked the
arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties by issuing a notice dated
11.08.2023 to the respondents, namely the Union of India and others, seeking resolution of
disputes through arbitration - The respondents, however, vide reply dated 10.10.2023, denied
the invocation of arbitration - In view of existence of disputes between the parties and the
failure to arrive at a consensual appointment of an arbitrator in terms of agreed procedure, the
applicant instituted the instant application u/s 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
before the High Court for appointment of a sole arbitrator.
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: 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 Court upon the instant
application - 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 - With the consent of parties, the Court appoints Arbitrator for
resolving the disputes between the parties - Accordingly, application allowed. [Paras 8, 9, 11] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
 M/S Mayavati Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Pradyuat Deb Burman, Civil Appeal No. 7023 of 2019, decided on
05.09.2019; Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729; GOQII Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
v. Sokrati Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (2025) 2 SCC 192 - referred to

List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

List of Keywords
Restoration application; Recall of order; Sufficient cause; Arbitration application; s. 11(6) of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996; Appointment of sole arbitrator; Arbitration clause; Existence of dispute; Arbitration
agreement; Consent of parties; Failure to appoint arbitrator; Scope of proceedings; Prima facie satisfaction;
Appointing authority; Appropriate forum; Fees and expenses (Fourth Schedule); Application allowed.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Arbitration and Conciliation Application u/s 11(4) No. - 33 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Bipin Kumar Jaiswal, Prateek Sinha

Advs. for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G.I., Manu Vardhana

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

Restoration Application No. 4 of 2026.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Cause shown is sufficient. The order dated
15.12.2025 is recalled. The case is restored to its original number. The application is allowed.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application has been preferred under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator.
2 All. M S Kalicharan Pandey & Company Vs. Union of India & Ors.
209

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a notice/letter was issued to the respondent
on 11.8.2023 invoking the arbitration clause to which he replied on 10.10.2023 denying the same.
Hence, this application.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party does not dispute the fact about the existence of
dispute between the parties.

5. 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."

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. With the consent of the parties, this Court appoints Mr. Bibhuti Narain Singh, Adovcate
(AOR No. A/B 0181/2012) (e-mail advsinghbibhutinarayan@gmail.com) (Mb. No. 9450591217/
9792947895) resident of H.No. CKN-C-189, Chak Niratul (Jagma Hata) infront of Pani Ki Tanki)
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prayagraj who is present in the Court and has given his consent, 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. Office to intimate this order to the Arbitrator.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 210
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 264 of 2025

Greater NOIDA ...Applicant
Versus
M/S Elevator Properties Pvt. Ltd. ...Opposite Party

Issue for Consideration
Whether various aspect of the matter were not taken into consideration while allowing the writ petition.

Head Notes
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XLVII Rule 1- That review-petitioner/respondent in the
writ petition seeking review of the judgement delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of
rehearing and fresh decision of the case. Normally the principal is that a judgement pronounced
by Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so- The scope of review is limited
and under the guise of review, the parties cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and decided.

Held- Review petitioners have failed to make out any mistake or error apparent on the face of record in the
impugned judgment, and have failed to bring the case within the parameters laid down by this Court as well
as Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions for reviewing the impugned judgment- Review petition
dismissed.
(Para 13, 15 & 16)

Case Law Cited
Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Assam SEBI reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8
SCC 715; Sanjay Kumar Agrawal Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and another connected with other review petitions
reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362.

List of Acts
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords