OCD-14 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/479/2026 THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS M/S. J. S. B. ENGINEERING BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 27th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeeb Sinha, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Khastagir, Adv. Ms. Debomita Biswas, Adv. …for the petitioner The Court: Affidavit of service is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes alleged to have arisen between the parties out of the purchase agreement dated 16.11.2020. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that disputes have arisen between the parties in relation to the outstanding dues allegedly payable by the respondent. It is submitted that despite repeated demands, the respondent failed to liquidate the outstanding amount. Accordingly, the petitioner issued a notice dated 01.04.2026 invoking the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 39.1 of the purchase agreement and called 2 upon the respondent to concur in the appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Since the respondent failed to act upon the said notice, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and has perused the materials placed on record. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be invoked only upon valid invocation of the arbitration agreement in terms of Section 21 thereof. The issuance and service of a notice invoking arbitration is not an empty formality; it constitutes the very foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11. Such notice must clearly communicate to the opposite party that disputes have arisen and have been referred to arbitration, and must afford that party a fair opportunity to participate in the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal in terms of the agreed procedure. The petitioner has, prima facie, been able to establish that a valid notice was issued under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the notice dated 01.04.2026 was sent to the respondent at its last known address as furnished under the agreement, and that the said address is the very address at which all subsequent communications, including the demand notice and other correspondence, were duly delivered upon the respondent. It is well settled that a party who refuses to accept service, or fails to claim a postal article duly tendered at its correct and last known address, cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own default, and such refusal amounts to good and sufficient service, K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran 3 Vaidhyan Balan, reported as (1999) 7 SCC 510. Applying this principle to notices invoking arbitration under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the coordinate bench of this Court, in Srei Equipment Finance Ltd. v. SS Gulia Associates, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 2591, held that where a notice invoking arbitration is duly stamped and posted to the addressee's last known address as furnished in the agreement, and the postal department has attempted delivery there at, such facts constitute prima facie compliance with Section 3(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, giving rise to a presumption of service of the notice under Section 21, and that refusal of service in such circumstances amounts to good service. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the notice under Section 21 stands validly served upon the respondent, and the present petition is maintainable. Since there is no dispute that the parties have entered into the agreement dated 16.11.2020, which contains a valid arbitration clause, this Court is prima facie satisfied that an Arbitrator is liable to be appointed in terms of the agreement between the parties. In view of the same, this Court appoints Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee, Advocate (Mobile No. 9830468522) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall enter upon the reference making the disclosure with Section 12(1) of the Act and subject to the provisions of Section 12(5) thereof. 4 The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as may be mutually agreed by the parties. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned sole Arbitrator for necessary action. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and all other issues are left open to be urged before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) bp.