Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division
Order Date: 8 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Rehman Valjee; Respondent: Simplex Infrastructure Limited.
- Dispute arises from a work order dated 28 June 2017 under which the respondent hired a crawler crane from the petitioner.
- The petitioner alleges that the respondent stopped making payments, leaving an outstanding amount of Rs 13,24,422 payable by the respondent.
- The petitioner issued several demand emails and a legal notice dated 11 July 2024, purportedly invoking the arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- The respondent contended that the notice was merely a demand for payment and did not constitute a valid arbitration invocation.
- The petition was filed under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of a learned sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the work order.
Final Outcome
- The Court held that the notice dated 11 July 2024 did not satisfy the statutory requirements of a Section 21 notice because it lacked an unequivocal expression of intent to refer the dispute to arbitration; it was confined to a demand for payment.
- Consequently, the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was deemed non‑maintainable and dismissed.
- The Court clarified that the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from issuing a fresh, valid notice under Section 21 of the Act in the future, should the petitioner be so advised.
Topics: Arbitration, Court Order, Payment Dispute