M/s Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., through its Authorized Signatory, Shi Ankit Pandey vs Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited through its Managing Director

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 34 of 2025

M/S Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Shi Ankit Pandey

.....Applicant(s) Versus Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Ambrish Kumar Pandey, Gibran Akhtar Khan, Shweta Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Avinash Chandra Along with

¶5

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 35 of 2025

¶6

M/S Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, Shi Ankit Pandey

¶7

.....Applicant(s) Versus Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited, Through Its Managing Director .....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

and

¶9

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 36 of 2025

¶10

M/S Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative Shi Ankit Pandey

¶11

.....Applicant(s) Versus Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director .....Opposite Party(s)

¶12

AND

¶13

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 37 of 2025

¶14

M/S Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative Shi Ankit Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

ARBT No. 34 of 2025

2

Versus

Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director

¶20

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶21

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 38 of 2025

¶22

M/S Ang Life Sciences India Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative Shi Ankit Pandey

¶23

.....Applicant(s)

¶24

Versus

¶25

Uttar Pradesh Medical Supplies Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director

¶26

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶27

Court No. - 17

¶28

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶29

Heard Shri Gibran Akhtar Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Avinash Chandra, the learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶30

The applicant has filed the present application for appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute between the parties arising out of five contracts, all of which contain arbitration clause.

¶31

Although the opposite parties have filed objections against the application disputing the correctness of applicant's claim, however, it is not disputed that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and the claims require to be adjudicated by the arbitrator. The opposite party had objected against the application on the ground that the arbitration clause contains a requirement of making conciliation efforts prior to invoking arbitration clause but this plea has already been rejected by this Court. Thereafter, the Court had proposed the name of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arvind Kumar (Retd.) to act as an arbitrator. The arbitrator had also given his consent but the proposed arbitrator is residing at Allahabad whereas seat of the arbitration is at Lucknow and, therefore, both the parties requested for appointment of an arbitrator who is residing at Lucknow.

¶32