### Section 21 Notice Within Limitation Validates Section 11 Application After Setting Aside of Arbitral Award Summary of the Ruling: The High Court held that when an award is set aside under Section 34, fresh arbitral proceedings commence upon the issuance of a notice under Section 21. If such notice is issued within the three-year limitation period (accounting for Section 43(4) exclusions and COVID-19 extensions), a subsequent Section 11 application is maintainable. Furthermore, non-signatories cannot be referred to arbitration solely on grounds of equity or "separate orbits" of operation if they lack derivative interest or implied consent.

The Applicants sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, invoking a clause in a Partnership Deed dated December 9, 1985

An earlier award dated April 15, 2016, had been set aside by the Bombay High Court on October 15, 2019

Fresh arbitral proceedings were initiated via a Section 21 notice on March 8, 2024

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original partners) contested the application on grounds of limitation, arguing the three-year period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act commenced immediately upon the setting aside of the previous award

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (inducted via 2009 deeds) resisted on the ground that they were non-signatories to the 1985 Deed and that the Applicants had previously stated the award would not bind them

The court applied Section 21 regarding the commencement of arbitral proceedings and Section 43(4) of the Arbitration Act, which mandates the exclusion of the period between the commencement of arbitration and the setting aside of an award for computing limitation for fresh proceedings

The court relied on Harkisandas Tulsidas Pabari v. Rajendra Anandrao Acharya regarding the mandatory nature of a fresh Section 21 notice for new proceedings

The court applied the "veritable party" and "claiming through or under" doctrines as interpreted in Cox and Kings Limited v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd.

The court applied Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd., which requires a referral court to prima facie determine if a non-signatory intended to be bound

Regarding limitation, the Court held that under Section 43(4), fresh proceedings must be commenced after an award is set aside. Since the Section 21 notice was issued on March 8, 2024—after excluding the period from the first invocation until the 2019 set-aside order and further excluding the COVID-19 extension period (March 2020 to February 2022)—the application was within the three-year limit of 915 reckonable days

Regarding Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Court found they were inducted under a separate 2009 partnership deed and operated in a "separate orbit" from the 1985 deed

Applying the Hindustan Petroleum standard, the Court determined there was no prima facie evidence of intent to bind them to the 1985 arbitration clause, nor did they derive their rights from the 1985 signatories in a way that satisfied the "claiming through or under" test

The Court allowed the application against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and dismissed it against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Court appointed Mrs. Justice Sadhana Jadhav (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the Applicants and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

All contentions were kept open for the Arbitrator