Swastik Pipe LTD vs. Sunil Kumar Goel

Facts

The petitioner, Swastik Pipe Ltd., filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer disputes to arbitration. The disputes arose from two tax invoices totaling ₹ 8.85 lakhs, both containing an arbitration clause. The petitioner issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act on November 5, 2022, to the respondent, Sunil Kumar Goel, at his last known address as per GST returns. This notice was returned undelivered. Similarly, court notices were also returned with postal remarks indicating the respondent was not available at the address. The petitioner argued that the address used was the respondent's last known address, corroborated by GST filings, and therefore, service should be deemed effected.

Held

The Court held that service of notice on the respondent could be deemed to have been effected, as the address used was the respondent's last known address, corroborated by his GST returns. The Court reiterated that in a Section 11 petition, its primary function is to determine if an arbitration agreement exists between the parties and if the petition is filed within three years of the Section 21 notice. Both these conditions were found to be satisfied in the present case. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, appointing Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Advocate, as the arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The arbitrator is entitled to charge fees as per the Fourth Schedule of the 1996 Act and must file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) within a week of entering the reference. All questions of fact and law remain open for the arbitral proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given the returned court notices and the respondent's absence from the last known address? 2. Whether an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, and if so, whether the petition has been filed within the prescribed time limit? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the address used for sending notices was the respondent's last known address, as reflected in his GST returns, thus service should be deemed complete. They argued that the Court's role under Section 11 is limited to ascertaining the existence of an arbitration agreement and the timely filing of the petition. Both these conditions were met. Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded for the revenue or State in the judgment.