Party Providing Wrong Address During Proceedings Cannot Argue Incorrect Arbitration Notice U/s 21 A&C: Delhi High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court (“High Court”) under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the Partnership Deed.

The Respondent acknowledged the existence of disputes between the parties and the requirement for arbitration as per the Partnership Deed. However, the Respondent opposed the petition, arguing its prematurity. The contention was based on the Petitioner's alleged failure to serve a valid notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, a prerequisite for invoking arbitration under Section 11. The Respondent claimed that the invocation notice was incorrectly addressed to the Respondent's prior location.

In counter, the Petitioner contended that during the filing of a previous petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to set aside an earlier ex parte arbitral award, the Respondent himself provided the same outdated address. The Petitioner argued against allowing the Respondent to claim now that the invocation notice was not served at the correct address. Additionally, the Petitioner asserted that the purpose of the invocation notice was to inform the opposing party about the claimant's intent to invoke arbitration, a fact which was known to the Respondent.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court favored the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent, having provided his address in the previous petition filed in December 2021, is not in a position to argue that the invocation notice was improperly served. Moreover, it held that the purpose of the invocation notice is to inform the opposing party about the dispute and provide an opportunity for mutual agreement on the appointment of an arbitrator. Given that the Respondent was well aware of the Petitioner's intent for arbitration, the High Court held rejected Respondent's argument.

Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Pranav Proothi, was appointed as the arbitrator with the consent of the parties to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Partnership Deed.

Case Title: Devender Kumar Kashyap vs Chander Muni.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 221

Case Number: ARB.P. 1269/2023.

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. L.K.Singh, Mr. J.K.Jaiswal, Ms. Saira Praveen.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Puneet Ahuja.

Click Here To Read/Download Order