Arbitrability and Section 21 notice objections failed where correspondence showed intent to arbitrate and prior forums did not bar reference.

A commercial dispute concerning payment claims under a work order was treated as arbitrable because prior proceedings before other fora did not negate the distinct scope of a Section 11 reference, and the court found no bar from forum shopping. The objection based on Section 21 notice also failed because the correspondence, reply, and surrounding proceedings clearly showed notice of the dispute and an intent to proceed with arbitration, with the respondent having engaged on that basis. The petition for appointment of an arbitrator was therefore maintainable, and interim protection was also granted pending arbitral adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether disputes between the parties were arbitrable and the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable; (ii) whether absence or alleged defect in notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred reference to arbitration.

Issue (i): whether disputes between the parties were arbitrable and the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was maintainable.

Analysis: The dispute related to payment claims under the work order, and the respondent had consistently denied liability and disputed the amounts claimed. The existence of prior proceedings before other fora did not negate arbitrability, since the scope of inquiry in those proceedings was distinct from reference to arbitration. The doctrine of forum shopping was not attracted merely because the petitioner had pursued different remedies in different forums for distinct reliefs and stages of the same commercial dispute.

Conclusion: The disputes were held to be arbitrable and the petition under Section 11 was maintainable in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether absence or alleged defect in notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred reference to arbitration.

Analysis: The demand notice and reply made the dispute and the intent to resort to legal proceedings clear. The parties had also engaged in proceedings where referral to arbitration was discussed, and the respondent had expressed willingness to have the disputes resolved by arbitration. In these circumstances, the requirement of notice was treated as sufficiently complied with, and mere objection as to the form or sufficiency of invocation could not defeat the request for appointment of an arbitrator.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 21 notice was rejected and did not bar appointment of an arbitrator.

Final Conclusion: The petition for appointment of an arbitrator and the connected request for interim protection were allowed, and the disputes were directed to be decided in arbitration with interim maintenance of the specified balance amount pending adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A commercial dispute remains arbitrable despite prior resort to other forums, and the requirement of notice invoking arbitration is satisfied where the correspondence and surrounding proceedings clearly convey the intent to refer the dispute to arbitration and the opposite party has engaged on that basis.

---