Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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