Commencement of arbitral proceedings
Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with commencement of arbitral proceedings. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent. The Act came into force on 22 Aug 1996.
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.
Section 21, The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Neeraj Munjal & Ors. v. Atul Grover & Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DATE VERIFIED Judgment 05.05.2005 (order-3.pdf): SC held commencement of arbitral proceedings under s.21 (notice/request) determines whether 1940 Act or 1996 Act applies via s.85(2)(a); reference made before 1996 Act meant 1940 Act governed challenges — parties cannot be deprived of statutory objection remedies; remitted for 1940 Act ss.30/33 objections.
On this section: s.21 Commencement of arbitral proceedings — triggers repeal/savings and which arbitration statute applies.
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Retail Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when properly read in light of its principles of party autonomy (Sections 2(6), 2(8), 19(2)), definition of arbitration (Section 2(1)(a) including arbitration administered by permanent arbitral institutions), and the commencement of arbitral proceedings (Section 21 read with institutional rules), provides that an Emergency Arbitrator's award delivered under institutional rules such as the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules is an 'order' under Section 17(1) of the Act. Such orders are enforceable under Section 17(2) as if they were orders of a court. No appeal lies against an order passed under Section 17(2) in enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's award, either under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act or under the Code of Civil Procedure, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive and exclusive remedy for appeals in arbitration matters, and Section 37(2)(b) provides appeals only for orders granting or refusing interim measures under Section 17(1), not for enforcement proceedings under Section 17(2). A party that has agreed to be governed by institutional arbitration rules cannot subsequently characterize an Emergency Arbitrator's award as a nullity and ignore it until such award is formally set aside through proper procedures, as doing so violates the rule of law and fundamental principles of obedience to court orders.
On this section: Commencement of arbitral proceedings. Read with SIAC Rules Rule 3.3 to show that proceedings commence on receipt of complete notice by SIAC Registrar, even before tribunal constitution, thereby covering Emergency Arbitration within 'arbitral proceedings'.
-
North Western Railway Thr. General Manager vs Bharat Spun Pipes and Construction Company Thr. Partner Dinesh Chandra Gupta S/o Late R. K. Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration request is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 came into force on 23-10-2015, the pre-amended provisions of the 1996 Act apply (Section 21 read with Section 26 of Amendment Act 2015). In such cases, the appointment procedure agreed in the arbitration clause must be exhausted first before the Chief Justice or designate appoints an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6). The Chief Justice or designate may deviate from the agreed procedure only when justifiable doubts exist about the independence and impartiality of the designated arbitrator, or when the agreed procedure has demonstrably failed. Furthermore, the execution of a 'no claim certificate' does not bar arbitration when the certificate is signed under economic duress (i.e., when a contractor's final payment is withheld unless the certificate is signed), as such circumstances do not constitute genuine accord and satisfaction.
On this section: Establishes that arbitral proceedings commence when request is received by respondent unless otherwise agreed; determines which substantive law applies based on when request is received
-
Union of India Thr. Chief Engineer (construction) 1 vs B. M. Construction Company Thr. Proprietor Bal Kishan Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The core ratio of the judgment comprises three holdings: (1) Amendment Act 2015 does not apply to arbitration proceedings where dispute request was received before October 23, 2015; pre-amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 alone applies per Section 21 read with Section 26. Therefore High Court cannot invoke Section 12(5) for such cases. (2) Execution of 'no claim certificate' by contractor does not bar arbitration when prima facie evidence suggests financial coercion by employer who conditions payment on certificate execution. Such certificates are not genuine accord and satisfaction but forced settlement under economic duress, following the National Insurance vs. Boghara Polyfab framework, particularly illustration 52(iii). (3) High Court under Section 11(6) must first ensure contractually agreed appointment procedure is exhausted before appointing independent arbitrator. Contractual appointment procedure takes precedence; High Court is last resort. Deviation is permissible only when appointed arbitrator's independence is in doubt or when appointed tribunal has failed to function. Mere preference for independent arbitrator does not justify skipping agreed procedure.
On this section: Commencement of arbitral proceedings from date request is received by respondent. Court held this determines whether pre-amended or amended Act applies.
-
Amazon. Com Nv Investment Holdings LLC vs Future Coupons Private Limited
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Full party autonomy is given by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to have a dispute decided in accordance with institutional rules which can include Emergency Arbitrators delivering interim orders, described as 'awards'. Such orders are an important step in aid of decongesting the civil courts and affording expeditious interim relief to the parties. Such orders are referable to and are made under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration Act. Additionally, no appeal lies under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act against an order of enforcement of an Emergency Arbitrator's order made under Section 17(2) of the Act, as Section 37 provides an exhaustive code for appeals from orders under the Arbitration Act, and the legal fiction created by Section 17(2) is limited to enforcement purposes only and does not extend to appellate jurisdiction.
On this section: Court holds that under SIAC Rules, arbitral proceedings commence upon receipt of notice by Registrar, which occurs before tribunal constitution, supporting Emergency Arbitrator's authority
-
North Western Railway General Manager vs Anil Trading Company Proprietor Shri Dinesh Kumar Khinchi S/o Shri Chandra Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where arbitration request predates Amendment Act 2015 (23-10-2015), proceedings are governed by pre-amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. In such cases: (1) Execution of 'no claim' or 'no dues' certificates does not automatically bar arbitration if executed under economic duress or coercion; (2) Chief Justice/designate must first ensure agreed arbitration appointment procedure is exhausted before invoking Section 11(6); (3) Deviation from agreed procedure is permissible only when independence/impartiality of agreed arbitrator is in justified doubt or agreed Tribunal has failed to function; (4) Small/petty contractors required to execute no claim certificates as condition precedent to release of admitted payments constitute cases of presumed coercion absent clear evidence of voluntary accord and satisfaction; (5) Arbitral disputes subsist despite no claim certificates when circumstances indicate economic duress, and such disputes are arbitrable notwithstanding purported full and final discharge.
On this section: Establishes that arbitral proceedings commence when request for arbitration is received by respondent; combined with Section 26 to determine applicability of amended or pre-amended Act
-
Union of India General Manager vs Parmar Construction Company Partner Achhar Singh Parmer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
1. Where an arbitration request is received before the Arbitration And Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force (23rd October 2015), the arbitral proceedings are governed by the pre-amended Act, 1996, and the Amendment Act provisions cannot be invoked retroactively unless parties explicitly otherwise agree. 2. Signing of a 'no-claim certificate' does not per se discharge the arbitration agreement or eliminate arbitrable disputes; if the certificate is executed under economic duress or coercion (such as making payment of admitted bill amounts conditional on signing the certificate), the discharge is involuntary and does not constitute valid accord and satisfaction, leaving arbitral disputes arbitrable. 3. The Chief Justice or designate, while exercising powers under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, must first ensure that the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties in the arbitration clause is exhausted before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator; the agreed procedure must be given effect as closely as possible, and the Court is the last resort. 4. Only in circumstances where the independence and impartiality of the person designated in the arbitration agreement is in doubt (with reasons recorded), or where the Arbitral Tribunal appointed per the agreement has failed to function and discharge its obligations, may the Chief Justice appoint an independent arbitrator as an alternative; mere failure to appoint by the agreed party does not trigger independent appointment power.
On this section: Unless otherwise agreed, arbitral proceedings commence on date request for arbitration is received by respondent. This is critical to determine whether amended or pre-amended provisions apply.
-
Union of India General Manager vs Rajendra Prasad Bansal Partner
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where arbitration request is received before Amendment Act 2015 comes into force, pre-amended provisions of 1996 Act apply to the arbitration proceedings unless parties expressly agree otherwise. No-claim certificates executed by contractors under economic duress (where payments withheld unless certificates signed) do not bar arbitration. Courts must exhaust agreed appointment procedures before appointing independent arbitrators under Section 11(6), and should only depart from such procedures when genuine grounds exist (bias or tribunal failure), not merely because amended statutory requirements prefer independent arbitrators. The appointment procedure agreed upon in contracts must be given priority and effect to the extent possible before court intervention.
On this section: Commencement of arbitral proceedings from date request for referral is received by respondent; determining temporal jurisdiction
-
Union of India General Manager vs Maya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Director B L. Jhedu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a request for arbitration is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 comes into force (October 23, 2015), the arbitral proceedings are governed by the pre-amended Act under Section 26 of the Amendment Act. No-claim certificates obtained as a condition precedent for release of admitted dues constitute discharge under economic duress and do not bar arbitration. The Chief Justice or designate must first ensure exhaustion of the contractually agreed arbitrator appointment procedure before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, and can only do so if the agreed procedure fails, or the appointed arbitrator shows bias or failure to perform, or other compelling circumstances warrant such deviation. The agreed procedures in contracts must be respected and given effect as closely as possible, with the court acting as a measure of last resort.
On this section: Interpreted to determine when arbitral proceedings commence. Combined with Section 26, established that Amendment Act 2015 provisions do not apply to proceedings where request for arbitration was received before October 23, 2015.
-
North Western Railway General Manager vs Bharat Spun Pipes and Construction Company Partner Dinesh Chandra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration agreement contains a specific procedure for appointment of arbitrators and a request for arbitration is received before the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 came into force (23rd October 2015), the arbitration shall proceed under pre-amended 1996 Act provisions. The Chief Justice or designate, exercising power under Section 11(6), shall not appoint an independent arbitrator bypassing the agreed appointment procedure unless: (a) the party responsible for appointment has failed to appoint within stipulated time and the matter cannot be further delayed, or (b) the agreed Tribunal, once appointed, fails to function or perform its obligations, or (c) prima facie evidence of bias, mala fides, or lack of independence in the person nominated is established before appointment is made. Mere execution of a no-claim certificate does not discharge a contract or bar arbitration where prima facie evidence of economic duress or coercion in its execution is present; such invalidity questions are arbitrable and must be decided by the arbitrator. The Court must first exhaust agreed procedures before resorting to alternative arrangements.
On this section: Defines commencement of arbitral proceedings as date request for referral is received by respondent; used to determine applicability of Amendment Act, 2015.
-
Union of India General Manager vs Sri Harsha Constructions
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court erred in invoking the amended provisions of Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 for appointing an independent arbitrator when the request for arbitration was received before October 23, 2015 (the commencement date of the Amendment Act), as Section 26 of the Amendment Act clearly provides that the amended provisions do not apply to arbitral proceedings commenced before the commencement of the Amendment Act unless the parties otherwise agree. Furthermore, the High Court should have exhausted the mutually agreed appointment procedure prescribed under Clause 64(3) of the General Conditions of Contract before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator, as the agreed procedure must be given effect as closely as possible and the Court is only the last resort when the agreed remedies fail. Lastly, while no-claim certificates may ordinarily bar arbitration when they result from accord and satisfaction, in cases where the contractor signs such certificates under economic duress by conditioning payment of admitted dues on signature, the certificate does not discharge the contract and the disputes remain arbitrable before an arbitrator who can examine the validity of the certificate on the basis of coercion or undue influence.
On this section: Court analyzed Section 21 which states 'Unless otherwise agreed by parties, the arbitral proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred to arbitration is received by the respondent.' Court used this section in conjunction with Section 26 of Amendment Act 2015 to determine when the amended provisions apply.
-
Union of India Thr. General Manager vs Rajendra Prasad Bansal Thr. Partner Rajendra Prasad Bansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an arbitration agreement prescribes a specific procedure for appointment of arbitrators and one party fails to appoint within the agreed timeframe, the Chief Justice or designate exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in cases where arbitration was requested before the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act 2015 came into force) must first exhaust the agreed appointment procedure by directing the defaulting party to appoint arbitrators in accordance with the contract terms. Only when the agreed procedure is genuinely impossible to perform, or when appointed arbitrators are shown to suffer from demonstrable bias or partiality, or when an appointed tribunal has significantly failed to function and perform its duties, may the Court appoint an alternative independent arbitrator. The mere fact that arbitrators would be drawn from the government establishment that is party to the contract is not, without more, a ground to bypass the agreed procedure and appoint independent arbitrators. Similarly, the execution of a no claim certificate by a contractor, even in a prescribed format, does not constitute an absolute bar to arbitration; if the certificate was signed under economic duress (such as withholding of admitted payment amounts until the certificate is signed), the contractor retains the right to challenge its validity before the arbitrator on grounds of fraud, coercion, or undue influence, and this question must be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance, not foreclosed by the court.
On this section: Establishes that arbitral proceedings commence on the date when a request for arbitration is received by the respondent. This is the critical date for determining which version of the Act applies.
-
Union of India General Manager vs Kewal Construction Co. (jv)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an arbitration request is received before Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act 2015 came into force on 23rd October 2015 the pre-amendment Act applies and Amendment Act provisions do not retroactively apply. The High Court must first ensure the contractually agreed appointment procedure for arbitrators is exhausted before exercising power under Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator. A No Claim Certificate signed by a contractor does not bar arbitration and constitute full discharge of contract if the contractor establishes prima facie that the certificate was signed under financial duress coercion or undue influence as a condition precedent for release of payment. The agreed arbitration agreement survives and remains enforceable when the No Claim Certificate is obtained not by free consent but under economic compulsion by the employer withholding payment.
On this section: Arbitral proceedings commence on date request received by respondent - determines whether pre-amendment or post-amendment Act applies based on when request was received
-
Maverick Motors LLP & Ors. v. Rohit Murthy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Body dated 29th April 2025 matches order index Final Order (WRONG DOCUMENT banner is false-positive from earlier interim dates recited in narrative). Karnataka HC held s.21 notice commencing arbitral proceedings satisfies Rule 9(4) “initiation” for preserving s.9 interim relief — commercial court wrongly vacated interim for alleged non-initiation within 3 months.
On this section: s.21 Commencement — s.21 notice equals commencement/initiation for s.9 interim-relief timelines.
-
Union of India vs Harinarayan Khandelwal Th. Director
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In arbitration matters governed by the pre-amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where a request for arbitration has been received before October 23, 2015, the amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 do not apply unless parties otherwise agree. The Chief Justice or designate must first ensure that the contractually agreed appointment procedure for arbitrators is exhausted before invoking Section 11(6) to appoint an independent arbitrator. Appointment of independent arbitrators may only be done when the Chief Justice is satisfied that circumstances warrant departure from agreed procedure, such as justified apprehension of bias of the contractually designated arbitrator or failure of the appointed arbitrator to discharge functions. Further, no-claim certificates signed by contractors as condition precedent for release of admitted dues, when signed by petty contractors with unequal bargaining power and without voluntary agreement, can be presumed to be signed under economic duress and therefore do not bar arbitration proceedings.
On this section: Commencement of arbitral proceedings from date request for arbitration is received by respondent. Court held that this determines applicability of Amendment Act provisions under Section 26.
-
Neeru Jain & Ors. (M.K. Jain batch) v. Jasmine Buildmart Pvt. Ltd.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DATE VERIFIED Final Order 27.07.2020 (order-2.pdf): Delhi HC held “arbitral proceedings shall be commenced” in s.9(2) must be read with s.21 — commencement occurs when opposite party receives request for arbitration; if commencement precedes the s.9 order, the 90-day s.9(2) clock does not apply; modified prior judgment’s s.9(2) restriction.
On this section: s.21 Commencement — defines when s.9(2) 90-day commencement requirement is satisfied/inapplicable.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 21
What have the courts held on Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Neeraj Munjal & Ors. v. Atul Grover & Anr. (05 May 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.21 Commencement of arbitral proceedings — triggers repeal/savings and which arbitration statute applies. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Arbitration Act 21, section 21 Arbitration Act, section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. People searching for it also type arbitration act section 21 notice. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Neeraj Munjal & Ors. v. Atul Grover & Anr. (05 May 2005).
What should I read with Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently APPENDIX (1996).
When did Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act come into force?
Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cited as Arbitration Act 21, came into force on 22 Aug 1996, having been enacted on 16 Aug 1996. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement1029 words
- 11. Appointment of arbitrators1027 words
- 34. Application for setting aside arbitral awards861 words
- 2. Definitions732 words
- 29A. Time limit for arbitral award635 words
- 57. Conditions for enforcement of foreign awards519 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.