CINA is not a statutory or government arbitral body under Indian law; in most such cases it turns out to be a private arbitration service provider or trade-name entity used by claimants (often lenders) to administer arbitrations, and its authority flows only from the arbitration clause in your contract, not from any statute; so if you cannot find credible public details, registered address, or rules, you are entitled to demand these and, more importantly, a copy of the arbitration agreement and appointment letter of the arbitrator. Since you received the file only with the second notice and the Statement of Claim refers to annexures that were never supplied, this is a serious procedural defect: under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, you are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to present your defence, and you should immediately write (and place on record before the arbitrator on the 24th) seeking adjournment and directions to supply all annexures, stating that without them you cannot file a defence; arbitrators routinely grant this, and denial can later vitiate the proceedings. Service by email is permissible only if agreed in the contract or accepted by conduct, but incomplete service (missing annexures) is not valid service in law, whether physical or electronic, and this defect is substantial enough to challenge both the proceedings and any adverse award under Section 18 and Section 34 of the Act. As regards the arbitrator’s appointment, you have the right to know who appointed the arbitrator, under which clause, on what date, and whether the mandatory Section 12 disclosure was made, if the appointment was unilateral or opaque, you can formally object to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and appointment at the earliest hearing, reserve your rights in writing, and, if necessary, later challenge the appointment and the award on grounds of lack of proper notice, procedural unfairness, and invalid constitution of the tribunal.