Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator In Maintenance Dispute After Respondents Fail To Appear Despite Newspaper Service

The petitioner sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on Clause 17 of the parties’ Maintenance Agreement, which provided for arbitration of specified disputes

The respondents were served by newspaper publication pursuant to an order under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but did not appear or file a reply

The Court proceeded to consider the appointment in their absence

Under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court’s enquiry is confined to examining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement

Clause 17 of the Maintenance Agreement provided for disputes within its scope to be referred to a sole arbitrator, with the arbitration proceedings governed by the Act

Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits substituted service by publication when directed by the Court; the Court treated the publication and affidavit of service as establishing sufficient service

The Court found that the newspaper publication, supported by the affidavit of service, constituted sufficient service and that the respondents had been given an opportunity to participate and respond, but had not done so

It then considered Clause 17 and concluded that a valid and binding arbitration agreement prima facie existed. Applying the limited Section 11 enquiry, the Court found no impediment to appointing a sole arbitrator

The arbitration was directed to proceed under the rules and aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, with fees as per its schedule.

The parties were left free to raise all pleas, including arbitrability and jurisdiction, before the arbitrator; the petition was disposed of accordingly