Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Universal Consortium of Engineers Private Limited (“applicant”) v. Sri Kanak Mitra (“respondent”), [AP 279 of 2020, decided on April 7, 2021], decided upon the issue whether, an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) is maintainable in the absence of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act being served upon the respondent? 

Decision by the Court: 

The Calcutta High Court, in the instant case, despite acknowledging the existence of a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, with respect to the afore-mentioned issue, held as follows: 

1. There is no mandate under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act that an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act will not be maintainable unless a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act is served upon the respondent by the applicant;
2. While interpreting a notice i.e. whether the same fulfills the requisites of Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, the parties must not resort to an overly legalistic approach. Hence, if the intention of the party issuing the notice is eloquent i.e. it desires arbitration of the dispute, the same should be regarded as sufficient to invoke arbitral proceedings;
3. In a commercial dispute, a notice seeking arbitration ought not to be construed too strictly. 

Please find attached a copy of the judgment. 

This update has been contributed by Arka Majumdar (Partner) and Kunal Dey (Associate).