Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction

High Court of Delhi Upholds Importance of Accurate Invocation Notices in Arbitration Cases – Justice Rekha Palli

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment by the High Court of Delhi, Justice Rekha Palli emphasized the crucial role of proper service of invocation notices in arbitration proceedings. The court’s decision in the case of Devender Kumar Kashyap vs. Chander Muni (ARB.P. 1269/2023) brings clarity to the procedural aspects of arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The petitioner, Devender Kumar Kashyap, represented by advocates Mr. L.K. Singh, Mr. J.K. Jaiswal, and Ms. Saira Praveen, sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a Partnership Deed dated April 11, 2016. The respondent, Chander Muni, represented by Mr. Puneet Ahuja, contested the petition on grounds of the petitioner’s failure to serve a valid invocation notice as per Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Justice Rekha Palli, in her ruling, stated, “once the respondent himself provided his address at Village Bharola, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi-110033 in OMP (COMM) 34/2021, he cannot be permitted to urge that the invocation notice was not served at the correct address.” This observation underscores the necessity of serving invocation notices correctly and the implications of the parties’ awareness of the dispute.

The court dismissed the respondent's objection regarding the improper service of the invocation notice. It was noted that the respondent had been aware of the petitioner’s intention to invoke arbitration since 2021. Consequently, the petition for arbitration could not be considered premature.

In a landmark decision, Mr. Pranav Proothi was appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, with the court emphasizing the non-expression of any opinion on the merits of the rival claims. This appointment and the subsequent process will be governed by the relevant sections and schedules of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Date of decision: 04.12.2023

DEVENDER KUMAR KASHYAP  VS CHANDER MUNI   

Latest Legal News