Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is essential for arbitration invocation.

ORAL ORDER

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section

11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) seeking the appointment of Sole Arbitrator by invoking Section 11(5)

of the Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the documents annexed to the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

3. This Court on an examination of records has noticed that the petitioner has not satisfied the ingredients of Section 11(5) of the Act.

4. This court in various judgments has emphasised the necessity of adhering to the procedural requirements stipulated under Section 11 of the Act, particularly concerning the appointment and notification of an arbitrator.

5. On a plain reading of the legal notice dated

20.0.2021, it is evident that the petitioner has merely conveyed an intention to invoke the arbitration clause embedded in the agreement between the parties. The notice does not, however, nominate or appoint an arbitrator or provide any concrete step towards constituting the arbitral tribunal. It states only the petitioner’s general intent to refer the disputes to arbitration, without fulfilling the procedural requirements outlined in Section 11(5).

6. Upon closer scrutiny, this Court finds that the petitioner’s notice fails to meet the standard prescribed by Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . Specifically, the petitioner’s failure to nominate or propose the appointment of an arbitrator, or to invite the respondent to concur in such an appointment, renders the notice deficient. InAlupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd. /b>, [O.M.P.No.3/2015]. , the Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with procedural prerequisites to ensure the proper invocation of the arbitration clause. Similarly, in Concorde Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.H. Puttaraju , [CMP.No.198/2021], the Court underscored the requirement for clear communication regarding the appointment of an arbitrator as a condition precedent to seeking judicial intervention under Section 11.

7. In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that the present petition is premature. The petitioner has not adequately invoked the arbitration clause in accordance with the statutory mandate. Consequently, the petition cannot be entertained at this stage. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to issue a fresh notice, in compliance with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and to approach this Court if the respondent fails to cooperate in the appointment of an arbitrator.

Reserving liberty to the petitioner to issue a fresh notice in conformity with the Section 11(5) of the Act, petition is disposed of.