Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madras High Court: Where the maintainability of an application filed under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of sole arbitrator, was challenged, a Single Judge Bench of K. Kumaresh Babu, J., held that the application is maintainable on the grounds of limitation under Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963 and notice to be served under Section 21, Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, Former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court, as sole arbitrator in the Kennel Club of India arbitration dispute holding that a formal Section 21 notice becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.
Background & Contentions
This petition was filed under Section 11(6), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for appointment of an arbitrator, in order to adjudicate upon the dispute between parties as the respondent society Kennel Club of India (Respondent 1), appointed Gauri Nargolkar (Respondent 4) as an all breed Judge, leading to disputes between petitioner and respondents.
As per the petitioner, the dispute arose under the by-laws of the respondent society, which had a clause of arbitration. Issue was the elevation of the 4th respondent as Judge without proper qualification.
The petitioner had first filed a suit against the appointment, contending the appointment to be null and void. The respondents filed an application invoking Section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, upon which the plaint was rejected, and the parties were referred to arbitration. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed. Eventually second appeal was filed, which was withdrawn by the petitioner referring to arbitration proceedings.
Therefore, this petition was filed seeking the appointment of an arbitrator.
It was the contention of the respondents that the petition is time-barred under Section 11, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as the Court can be approached for appointment of an arbitrator only after 30 days have lapsed after issuing notice under Section 21 and the recipient fails to respond to the notice or there is disagreement upon the nominated arbitrator. Since notice under Section 21 was not issued before approaching the Court, the petition is deficient and not maintainable.
The respondents contended that notice under Section 21 is mandatory for enabling the Court to calculate the period of limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 11.
Refuting the submission, the petitioner contended that the question of limitation cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as he had been pursuing his remedy under law and thus, the periods spent on those proceedings have to be excluded in counting the period of limitation. Relying on the judgments, the petitioner further submitted that in an application under Section 11, there was no necessity of a Section 21 notice as it is required to put the other party on notice as to the claims and appointment of the arbitrator. Such claims are within the purview of limitation and not barred by any law. Moreover, it was pointed out that when a Section 11 application is made pursuant to an order under Section 8 in a suit, there is no necessity for notice under Section 21.
Analysis
The Court took note of the previously instituted civil suit, the appeal and the second appeal.
The Court observed that Section 14, Limitation Act, excluded the period of time spent by a litigant in a wrong forum from calculating the period of limitation, if it was bona fide. The petitioner had only exercised his right of appeal as against an order passed under Section 8 and had become wiser to proceed with arbitration proceedings, when the second appeal was pending.
Thus, the Court held that the benefit under Section 14, Limitation Act would be squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner.
On the requirement of notice under Section 21, the Court noted that while invoking arbitration under Section 11 requires a valid arbitration clause and a notice putting the opposite party on notice regarding the specific disputes and the intent to appoint an arbitrator, a formal Section 21 notice becomes unnecessary where the petitioner had already disclosed all details in a prior civil suit and the respondent had responded by filing a Section 8 application acknowledging that the dispute must be resolved via arbitration.
Therefore, the Court held that there was no necessity for notice under Section 21, which was supported by the judgment in Globe Detective Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Gammon India Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39355.
Decision
Finding no legal impediment, the Court appointed Justice T.S. Sivagnanam (Former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The sole arbitrator was requested to enter upon the reference, resolve the disputes, and independently fix his fee.
[C.S. Sanjay Reddy v. Kennel Club of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 8663, decided on 1-9-2026]
Judgment Authored By: Justice K. Kumaresh Babu
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Petitioner: V.G.Suresh Kumar
Respondents: R. Srinivas, Mythili Srinivas
