Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’) for appointment of an arbitrator, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J., dismissed the petition while holding that the mere issuance of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act does not constitute service of the notice and observed that receipt of the notice by the respondent is mandatory to commence arbitration proceedings.

Background

An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent, after which a purchase order was issued. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties and an arbitration notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondent, by virtue of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

The respondent asserted that the purported arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was never served upon the respondent and that the notice was addressed to “T-5, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi” whereas the complete address of the respondent was “T-5/237, Mangol Puri, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110083”, as reflected in the agreement between the parties. Respondent further contended that in absence of notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act the petition for appointment of arbitrator was not maintainable.

Decision and Analysis

The Court, referring to Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, said it was settled law that service of notice is a prerequisite for the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

The Court further cited Alupro Building Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Ozone Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7228, wherein it was held that simply issuing a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was not sufficient and receipt of the notice by the addressee was mandatory for the commencement of the arbitration proceedings.

The Court noted that there was no reason for it to dissent from the already laid down position of law and held that given the facts of the present case, the notice had not been sent to the complete address of the respondent thereby resulting in the incomplete service of the notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act.

The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition.

[Indian Spinal Injuris Centre v. Galaxy India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4385, Order dated 08-05-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Advocate for the Petitioner: Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate

Advocates for the Respondent: Anshul Goel, Sanjeev Kumar, Ashok Goel, Advocates

Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996   HERE

arbitration and conciliation act, 1996

Must Watch

SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 20 ft. Devika Sharma, Senior Editorial Assistant is out now. The written episode along with the video

 Watch Weekly Rewind Video Supreme Court  SC invokes independence of judiciary, separation of powers to invalidate amendments in Finance Act, 2017 prescribing

18th episode of SCC Online Weekly Rewind featuring Nilufer Bhateja, Associate Editor bringing you the most important and interesting stories from the

Watch the latest episode of SCC Online Weekly Rewind Episode 17 featuring Devika Sharma, Senior Editorial Assistant (Legal). Highlight of the Week

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.