Mandatory Service of Section 21 Notice on the Correct Respondent is a Prerequisite for Section 11 Jurisdiction

The Petitioner filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Contract Agreement dated 24.03.2021.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the notice invoking arbitration dated 28.11.2025 was addressed to the Director General of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, rather than the Respondent (NHIDCL) as required by the contract.

Furthermore, Clause 27.13 of the Agreement specifically mandated that notices to the Respondent must be addressed to its Managing Director.

1. Whether a petition under Section 11(6) for the appointment of an arbitrator is maintainable when the mandatory notice under Section 21 of the Act was not served upon the proper Respondent.

2. Whether the service of notice under Section 21 is a mandatory foundational step for commencing arbitral proceedings.

The Court applied Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stipulates that arbitral proceedings commence on the date a request for arbitration is received by the respondent.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in *Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd.*, which established that the Section 21 notice is mandatory (unless expressly waived) because it facilitates consensus on the arbitrator’s appointment, allows the respondent to evaluate claims or raise objections (such as limitation), and serves as the "trigger" for the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 11.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s notice dated 28.11.2025 was misdirected to a third party (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) instead of the actual contracting party, NHIDCL.

Applying the *Alupro Building Systems* doctrine, the Court reasoned that without proper service of notice on the designated authority (the Managing Director of NHIDCL, as per Clause 27.13), there was no valid commencement of arbitral proceedings under Section 21.

The Court emphasized that Section 11(6) jurisdiction is only triggered when there is a failure by a party to adhere to the appointment procedure following a valid notice; since the Respondent never received a valid request, it could not be said to have failed in its obligations.

The Court dismissed the petition and all pending applications but clarified that the Petitioner is not precluded from taking fresh steps in accordance with the law, such as issuing a fresh, correctly addressed notice.