IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:04.12.2025 All India Society for Electronics and Computer Technology (AISECT)

......Petitioner Versus Haryana State Rural Livelihoods Mission (HSRLM) and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Harneesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate and Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Narender Kumar Vashist, Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India-respondents No.2 and 3.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present is a petition filed under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in the present case.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was a valid agreement between the petitioner and the respondents (Annexure P-1), wherein there exist an arbitration clause for referring the matter to an Arbitrator. In this regard, he referred to Clause 8 of the aforesaid agreement to contend that considering the aforesaid arbitration clause, the present petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator. He submitted that since a dispute arose between the parties, the petitioner served a legal notice to the respondents (Annexure P-40)

but no response was received to the same and therefore, the present petition has been filed for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there does not exist any arbitration clause at all. In this regard, he also referred to the aforesaid Clause 8 to contend that a substantive portion of the aforesaid clause would show that there is no intention of the parties to refer the matter to the arbitration in case any dispute arises, although the heading of the aforesaid clause is "Arbitration and Applicable Laws". He submitted that it is a settled law that the provisions of Section 11 of the Act can only be invoked when there exists an arbitration clause. Whereas in the present case although the agreement between the parties is admitted but there is no arbitration clause and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, he referred to a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Surya Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. Haryana State Rural Livelihood Mission, bearing ARB case No.283 of 2021, decided on 31.01.2024 in which the aforesaid respondent-Haryana State Rural Livelihood Mission and the respondent in the present case are the same and the clause which was sought to be invoked in that case is also similar in nature. He submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after referring to various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the clause was not in the nature of an arbitration clause and therefore the present petition is also liable to be dismissed because there is no arbitration clause in the agreement.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. Before proceeding further the aforementioned Clause No.8 on the basis of which the present petition has been filed, is required to be reproduced below:-

“8. Arbitration and Applicable Laws-

8.1. The parties hereby agree that any controversy, claim or dispute arising in connection with this MOU, and which cannot be resolved amicably shall be referred to the Empowered Committee for Aajeevika Skills in the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, whose decision shall be final and binding on all parties.”

6. A perusal of the aforesaid clause would show that although the heading of Clause No.8 is “Arbitration and Applicable Laws,” but neither the substantive part of the clause itself conveys any kind of intention of the parties to r