Allowed

M/s G.S Express Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Devendra Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited Thru. M.D.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2025/72/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 11(6) seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator over payment disputes under a construction contract containing an arbitration clause. Limitation objection held a mixed question for the arbitrator. Former Judge K.L. Sharma appointed as arbitrator after consenting.

What did the court decide?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Sharma, Former Judge of this Court, appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between parties.

M/s G.S Express Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Devendra… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 72 of 2023

¶3

M/S G.S Express Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Devendra Singh

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Thru. M.D.	Nigam Limited	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Manish Mehrotra, Anchal Srivastav Tewari, Shasank Srivastava	Akshat Srivastava, a, Ravi Shanker Sonu, Vishwakant
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	Shishir Jain

¶6

Court No. - 17

¶7

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Vishwakant Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Jain, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶9

On 23.09..2025 this court had passed the following order:

¶10

"1. Heard Shri Vishwakant Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shishir Jain learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶11

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

¶12

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an agreement was entered between the parties on 03.03.2014 in terms whereof the construction of Siddharth Nagar University Kapilavastu, District Siddharth Nagar was to be done in terms whereof the petitioner was granted the contract.

¶13

4. It is stated that Clause 48 of the said contract provided for an arbitration clause that in case of any dispute, the matter would be referred for arbitration. It is the case of the petitioner that since certain disputes relating to payments arising out of the said contract were not made, hence the petitioner on 28.11.2022 invoked the arbitration

ARBT No. 72 of 2023

clause.

5. It has also been pointed out that in pursuance of the earlier notice the respondent vide a letter dated 04.11.2022 had repudiated the claims which persuaded the petitioner to escalate the matter for getting an Arbitrator appointed. However, there was no reply from the respondent to the said notice dated 28.11.2022, hence this petition.

¶18

6. Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the claims has sought to be raised by the petitioner is patently time barred; inasmuch as the final payment was given to the petitioner on 28.06.2019 whereas the notice invoking the arbitration is dated 28.11.2022. It is thus urged that in the given circumstance where the claims of the petitioner are apparently time barred, there can be no purpose of appointing an Arbitrator, consequently the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶19

7. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, certain undisputed facts that emerge are:(i) that the parties had entered into a contract which contained an arbitration clause; (ii) it is also not disputed that there is certain claims which have been raised by the petitioner which did not find favour with the respondent; (iii) it is also not disputed that the respondent vide their letter dated 04.11.2022 had rejected the claims thereafter the petitioner had sent a notice for getting an Arbitrator appointed. In the given facts situation where the existence of the arbitration clause and its invocation is not disputed rather the dispute has been raised regarding the fact whether the claims are time barred or not this question being a mixed question of law and fact hence, it can always be considered by the Arbitrator in terms of Section 16 of the Act of 1996.

¶20

8. Considering the aforesaid and leaving all contentions open to either parties, this Court finds that it is the fit case for referring the matter for arbitration. Accordingly, the Court proposes the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. L. Sharma, Former Judge of this Court, R/o 2/45 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile nos.9415560824 and 8707837134 to act as an Arbitrator.

¶21

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.

¶22

ARBT No. 72 of 2023

¶23

¶24

10. List this matter again on 31st of October, 2025 for further orders. " 3. The proposed Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. L. Sharma, Former Judge of this Court, R/o 2/45 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile nos.9415560824 and 8707837134 has signified his consent to act as an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties through letter dated 27.10.2025, which is accompanied by disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1)(b) and VIth and VIIth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶25

Accordingly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed . Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. L. Sharma, Former Judge of this Court, R/o 2/45 Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Mobile nos.9415560824 and 8707837134 is hereby appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶26

The office is directed to communicate this order to the Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. L. Sharma (Former Judge of this Court.

¶27

December 8, 2025 Ram.

¶28

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/s G.S Express Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Devendra Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited Thru. M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s G.S Express Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Devendra Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited Thru. M.D.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Diamond Infra Design Builders Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director Randheer Verma Vs Sajid Hussain and 6 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Nagendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Sultanpur and 3 Others

Adarsha Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 11 Others

Smt. Princy Pandey and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Fourth Faizabad / Ayodhya and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.