Ms Lectrix Ev Private Limited And Anr vs. Ms Greenfuel Energy Solutions Private Limited

Facts

M/s Lectrix EV Private Limited and another (applicants) filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an independent Arbitrator. The applicants contended that a dispute arose between them and M/s Greenfuel Energy Solutions Private Limited (respondent) concerning terms and conditions, including an arbitration clause, present in a GST Invoice. The applicants invoked this arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 04.07.2025, but received no response from the respondent. The applicants had previously deposited costs of Rs. 10,000/- as per a court order dated 19.12.2025. The respondent, despite being served, did not appear before the High Court on multiple occasions.

Held

The Court held that all essential conditions for the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were satisfied. The Court found that the arbitration clause was present in the GST Invoice, a dispute had arisen, and the applicants had duly invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 04.07.2025. The Court also noted the respondent's consistent non-appearance despite being served, which did not negate the applicants' claim. Consequently, the application was allowed. Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, a former Judge of the High Court, was nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, subject to compliance with statutory provisions, including Section 12 of the Act. Parties were directed to appear before the Arbitrator, and the Arbitrator was requested to complete proceedings within the time limit prescribed under Section 29-A of the Act. Fee was to be paid as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the conditions for appointing a Sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, are satisfied, given the existence of an arbitration clause in a GST Invoice and the respondent's failure to respond to the invocation notice. The applicants argued that the GST Invoice contained an arbitration clause, a dispute arose, and they invoked the arbitration clause by issuing a notice dated 04.07.2025. They further contended that no response was received from the respondent, thus satisfying the essential conditions for appointing an Arbitrator. The applicants relied on the arbitration clause within the GST Invoice and their invocation notice. The respondent did not present any arguments as they chose not to appear before the Court.