Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
M S. Kalicharan Pandey And Company – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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. 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 , Civi
The court emphasized that under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the inquiry is limited to the existence of an arbitration agreement, with no examination of the merits at th....
The main legal point established is the court's adherence to the narrow examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6A) and the emphasis on expeditious disposal of Secti....
The Court's decision was influenced by the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6A) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as discussed in the Mayavati Trading case law and Duro Felguera princ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the conclusive decision on the limitation plea and the importance of expeditious disposal of arbitration matters.
The appointment of the arbitrator must be in accordance with the arbitration agreement and must satisfy the provisions of the arbitration act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow scope of examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the narrow interpretation of Section 11(6) and the legislative policy to minimize court intervention in appointing arbitrators.
The court affirmed that an arbitration agreement's existence permits new arbitration despite prior dismissals, emphasizing limited judicial involvement under Section 11.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
