Technical Objections Can’t Derail Arbitration; Mode of Service of Notice Fall within the Domain of the Arbitral Tribunal: P&H High Court Appoints Tribunal Despite Dispute Over Agreement & Notice

Case Name: M/s Jones Lang Lasalle Building Operations Pvt. Ltd. v. Barnala Builders and Property Consultants

Date of Judgment: 18 February 2026

Citation: ARB-278-2022

Bench: Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that at the stage of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court is only required to examine the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement and its invocation. Technical objections regarding validity of documents or mode of service of notice fall within the domain of the arbitral tribunal and cannot defeat appointment of arbitrators.

Summary: The petitioner sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising out of a Property Management Service Agreement containing an arbitration clause. The dispute had remained pending since 2022.

During proceedings, the petitioner placed on record the original agreement duly signed by both parties. The respondent did not dispute execution or signatures but objected that the document differed from the earlier annexed version. It was further contended that the notice invoking arbitration was not served in the manner prescribed under the agreement.

The High Court rejected these objections, observing that the execution of the agreement and existence of an arbitration clause were undisputed. It held that whether the document differed from earlier annexures or whether proper notice was served are issues beyond the limited scope of Section 11 jurisdiction.

Reiterating settled law, the Court emphasized that Section 11 enquiry is confined to prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Issues relating to validity of notice, compliance with contractual procedure, or disputed factual questions must be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal under the doctrine of competence-competence.

The Court further held that technical objections cannot be permitted to frustrate arbitration, especially when the arbitration clause is clearly established.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and constituted the arbitral tribunal by appointing a second arbitrator, directing the tribunal to proceed in accordance with law.