NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

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