Presumption of Service of Notice Invoking Arbitration Sufficient to Appoint Arbitrator Under Section 11.

The respondent was awarded a government contract for a water supply project in Kishtwar and subsequently entered into a sub-contract agreement with the petitioner on 03.05.2013

The petitioner alleged that the respondent breached the agreement by withholding payments beyond the agreed 2% retention and failing to open an escrow account

The petitioner initially filed a civil suit for specific performance; however, the Commercial Court, Jammu, directed the parties to arbitration on 06.11.2025, noting the existence of an arbitration clause

The petitioner served a legal notice invoking arbitration on 12.11.2025, but the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, contesting the petition on the grounds that the notice was undated and never received

1. Whether the petitioner validly invoked the arbitration clause in accordance with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the respondent's denial of receipt of notice

2. Whether a Sole Arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Act to resolve the contractual disputes

The court applied Sections 11(5), 11(6), and 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Section 21 stipulates that arbitral proceedings commence on the date a request for the dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent

The court also relied on the principle of "presumption of service" regarding postal receipts for notices sent to corrected addresses

the court upheld the autonomy of the arbitration agreement as defined in Clause 12.2 of the parties' sub-contract, which mandates referral of unresolved disputes to a sole arbitrator

The court found that while the initial notice copy was undated, the petitioner subsequently provided a dated copy (12.11.2025) and a corresponding postal receipt

Since the address on the receipt matched the respondent’s address in the petition, the court invoked a presumption of service, thereby satisfying the requirement of Section 21

the court noted that the existence of the arbitration agreement (Clause 12.2) was undisputed and that the respondent itself had previously successfully argued for arbitration before the Commercial Court

Because the parties reached an impasse and could not mutually agree on an individual, the court determined that judicial intervention under Section 11 was necessary to give effect to the arbitration clause

The court appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was directed to provide statutory disclosure under Section 12(1), and the respondent was ordered to bear the arbitration charges as per the specific terms of Clause 12.2 of the agreement