The court ruled that a notice invoking arbitration is deemed served if dispatched to the correct address, and disputes cannot be dismissed on limitation grounds when evidence suggests ongoing acknowledgment of debt.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has filed the present petition under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the `A&C Act'), inter alia, praying as under:

"a) appoint any person, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as a Sole Arbitrator, to enter upon reference in order to adjudicate all disputes that have arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondents; and/or

b) award costs of the petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent; and

c) pass any other and further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioners and against the Respondent"

2. The present petition arises out of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to a Contract For Guarding Services dated 31.12.2013 (hereinafter `the Contract') entered into between the parties. In terms of the Contract, the petitioner had agreed to perform the work of security/guarding services as stipulated in Schedule I and II of the Contract.

3. It is the petitioner's grievance that although it had diligently performed the services mentioned in the Contract, the respondent has failed in its obligation to make the payment for the invoices raised for the services despite several reminders.

4. Various communications were exchanged between the petitioner and respondent from the period February 2015 to December 2017. The petitioner states that it had sent several emails requesting the respondent to clear its outstanding dues. The Statement of Accounts maintained by the petitioner reflect the outstanding amount as of 13.08.2018 at Rs.14,94,090/-.

5. In view of the aforesaid disputes, the petitioner issued a notice dated 24.09.2018, invoking the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration in terms of Clause 42 of the Contract (the Arbitration Clause). It also suggested the name of an advocate, for being appointed as the Sole Arbitrator.

6. The relevant clauses of the Contract are set out below:

"PART XI GOVERNING LAWS AND SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE

42. Any claims, dispute and or difference (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this Agreement) arising out of, or relating to this contract including Interpretation of its terms will be resolved through joint discussions of the authorised representatives of the parties. However, if any such claim, dispute or difference cannot resolved through such joint discussions within thirty (30} days of the date of the notice then the matter will be referred for adjudication to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties in accordance with the issued by either party requesting such joint discussions then the parties may refer the claim, dispute or difference for adjudication by arbitration by a single arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and rules made thereunder including any modifications, amendments and future enactments thereto. The venue for the arbitration will be New Delhi. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.

43. This Contract Is governed by the laws of Republic of India and, subject to clause 43, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts at Delhi"

Submissions

7. Mr. Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has opposed this pe