Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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