Providing Wrong Address Bars Objection to Arbitration Notice

Providing Wrong Address Bars Objection to Arbitration Notice

Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Narendra Kumar PrajapatCourt: Supreme Court of IndiaDate of Judgement: 12.12.2023

In a notable decision, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court addressed a jurisdictional issue involving the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a partnership deed. The respondent objected to the petitioner’s application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (“Act”) contending that the invocation notice under Section 21 of the Act was not served at the correct address, rendering the petition premature.

The Hon’ble High Court rejected the respondent’s objection, observing that the respondent had himself provided the same address in a separate proceeding. The court clarified that the purpose of an invocation notice is to inform the opposite party about the claimant’s intent to invoke arbitration, and since the respondent was aware of the petitioner’s intention to pursue arbitration since 2021, the petition could not be deemed premature.

Distinguishing a cited case where the respondent was unaware of the invocation notice due to an incorrect address, the Hon’ble High Court upheld the validity of the invocation notice and appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising from the partnership deed.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment

Delhi High Court Rules Email Delivery of Arbitral Awards Valid Under Arbitration Act.

Case Title: Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports v. Ernst and Young Pvt Ltd1Court: Delhi High CourtDate of Judgment: 23.08.2023

The Delhi High Court recently passed a judgment that has affirmed that the delivery of arbitral awards via email is valid under the Arbitration Act.

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court stated that the delivery of a scanned, signed copy of an arbitral award via email falls squarely within the ambit of valid delivery as stipulated under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.This decision clearly delineates the legal standing of electronic delivery methods in arbitration proceedings.

The court specifically stated that “The law has to keep its pace in tandem with the developing technology. When service by email is an accepted mode of service, then sending scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.”