Section 11 arbitration appointment: valid service and arguable non-arbitrability objections left for the tribunal.

At the Section 11 stage under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, valid service through advocate's notice on the Bombay High Court Original Side was accepted, and the appellant's later non-appearance did not invalidate that service. Objections that there was no arbitration agreement or that the claims were time-barred were not finally decided in the appointment proceedings; they had already been raised before the arbitral tribunal and in pending Section 34 proceedings. Applying the limited scope of scrutiny at Section 11, the SC held that plainly arguable issues of non-arbitrability and limitation should ordinarily be left to the tribunal or post-award review, so no interference with the sole arbitrator's appointment was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeals against the appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were liable to be interfered with on the grounds of alleged non-service of notice and alleged non-arbitrability or limitation.

Analysis: The service of the Section 11 petition was effected through advocate's notice, which the Court treated as a valid and established practice on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. The appellant's subsequent inability to appear did not invalidate the prior service. The Court also noted that the objections relating to absence of an arbitration agreement and limitation were not finally concluded in the Section 11 proceedings. Those issues were already raised before the arbitral tribunal, and the appellant had a pending challenge under Section 34 against the order under Section 16. In light of the limited scope of scrutiny at the Section 11 stage and the principle that plainly arguable objections of non-arbitrability are ordinarily left for the tribunal, no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The appeals were not entitled to succeed and were dismissed. The objections on non-arbitrability and limitation were left open for determination in the pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, where service is validly effected and objections to arbitrability or limitation are only arguable, the Court should ordinarily appoint the arbitrator and leave such objections to be decided in appropriate proceedings before the arbitral tribunal or in post-award judicial review.

---