Arbitrator appointment recall refused where service at the last-known address showed no apparent error in the earlier order.

An order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 was not recalled merely because notice was sent to the company's old address, where the record showed service at the last-known address and there was no palpable error in the earlier order. The Court held that compliance with change-of-registered-office formalities did not by itself show that the respondent was bound to discover the updated address immediately, and the earlier finding of due service and non-appearance carried a presumption of correctness. Issues touching the merits of the underlying dispute were left for the arbitrator. The recall application was rejected and the appointment order was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was liable to be recalled on the ground that notice of invocation and the Section 11 proceeding had been served at an old address and not at the company's updated registered address.

Analysis: The challenge turned on whether the applicant had shown a palpable error in the earlier order so as to justify recall. The Court held that the respondent had served communications at the last-known address available from the record and there was nothing to show that any reason existed for the respondent to make further inquiry into a change of address. Even assuming compliance with the statutory requirements for change of registered office under the Companies Act, 2013 and the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014, such compliance did not by itself establish that the respondent was bound to discover the updated address immediately. The Court also relied on the fact that the earlier Section 11 order recorded due service and non-appearance, and that judicial and official acts carry a presumption of correctness. Questions relating to the merits of the underlying dispute were held to be matters for the arbitrator.

Conclusion: The application for recall was rejected, and the order appointing the arbitrator was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: An order appointing an arbitrator will not be recalled merely because the applicant alleges service at an old address, where the record shows service at the last-known address, there is no error apparent on the face of the earlier order, and the challenge does not establish any statutory ineligibility or jurisdictional defect.

---