{"id":352527,"date":"2025-07-05T16:00:32","date_gmt":"2025-07-05T10:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=352527"},"modified":"2025-07-10T10:39:05","modified_gmt":"2025-07-10T05:09:05","slug":"del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (Arbitration Act) wherein the petitioner sought an interim order for attachment of properties of respondents to the tune of Rs 23.34 Crores, the Single Judge Bench of Jasmeet Singh, J*<\/span>, opined that since orders of attachment affect the financial health of the company, they are not passed as a routine and thus, dismissed the petition.<\/p>\n

While answering the issue raised by the respondents regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement, the Court noted that WhatsApp and email correspondences would constitute a binding and valid arbitration agreement if the statutory conditions were met.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

Belvedere (Petitioner), a company incorporated in UAE, was engaged in providing bespoke services including sale of coal. SM Niryat Pvt. Ltd (SMN) entered discussions with the petitioner over WhatsApp for sale of coal. On 13-10-2022, the petitioner shared the Standard Coal Trading Agreement (SCoTA) with SMN that contained an arbitration clause.<\/p>\n

Despite repeated reminders sent by the petitioner over email and WhatsApp, SMN failed to make the advance payment and to submit a signed copy of the contract. Subsequently, on 15-11-2025, SMN cancelled the deal. In accordance with terms of the SCoTA, Belvedere invoked arbitration under SIAC and sought damages for wrongful termination of contract and costs of arbitration.<\/p>\n

During the proceedings, Respondent 1 submitted a letter to SIAC asserting that SMN had been amalgamated with Respondent 1 and ceased to exist. Respondent 1 also denied any claims of the petitioner.<\/p>\n

Respondent 1 had argued that no valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties since the SCoTA was never formally concluded. They also contended that the Court did not possess the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition. Respondent 1 had further averred that the damages were unliquidated and were not debt and therefore could not be secured.<\/p>\n

The Court in the instant petition had deliberated upon three issues:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Whether the documents and correspondence showed a valid arbitration agreement?<\/li>\n
  2. Whether the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant petition?<\/li>\n
  3. \n

    Whether respondents should be directed to furnish security to the extent of USD 2,777,000?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis, Law and Decision<\/h3>\n

    The Court noted that the exchanges between the parties via WhatsApp and email clearly showed that the petitioner had forwarded the SCoTA to SMN and a representative of SMN had assured the petitioner that the contract would be sent after being signed and stamped.<\/p>\n

    The Court referred to Section 7(4)(b)<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> which stated that for an arbitration agreement to be valid, it must be contained in the communication that provided a record of the agreement. It must form a part of an exchange between parties, however, it\u2019s not necessary that the contract must be concluded between the parties.<\/p>\n

    Therefore, the Court held that since SCoTA contained the arbitration clause, correspondence acknowledging the implementation of terms of SCoTA constituted a valid arbitration agreement between parties. Thus, the Court held that the WhatsApp and email correspondences between the parties constituted a valid arbitration agreement, if the statutory conditions were met.<\/p>\n

    On the question of territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that there was no reason for this Court to have jurisdiction over the matter. The petitioner was incorporated in UAE, the respondent company\u2019s registered office was in Kolkata, the deal was negotiated through brokers in Singapore and the contract was repudiated in Kolkata. No cause of action arose in Delhi, and therefore the Court held that the this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction over the issue.<\/p>\n

    The Court further noted that the claim for damages for breach of contract would crystallize into debt only after it was adjudicated upon by an adjudicating authority. At the instant stage, the petitioner only had a claim for damages and not debt due. The Court also opined that the petitioner had to show that the defendant had an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree of the Court which would justify the passing of an interim order for attachment of his property. The Court further held that an order under Section 9<\/a> of the Arbitration Act<\/a> as sought by the petitioner could not be passed unless the conditions under Order 38 Rule 5<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> were fulfilled.<\/p>\n

    Thereafter, the Court held that since there was nothing on the records to show that Respondent 1 had any intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree, an order for attachment of properties could not be granted.<\/p>\n

    Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.<\/p>\n

    [Belvedere Resources DMCC v. OCL Iron and Steel Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4652<\/a>, decided on 1-7-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    Judgement authored by- Justice Jasmeet Singh<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    For the Petitioner:<\/span> Gauhar Mirza, Shivi Chola, Advocates<\/p>\n

    For the Respondents:<\/span> Krishnaraj Thaker (Senior Advocate), Anand Sukumar, S Sukumaran, Bhupesh Kumar, Ruche Anand, Advocates<\/p>\n

    Buy Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"arbitration<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents\/communication exchange between the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":352915,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[10111,40741,2543,84792,69917,84791,16151],"class_list":["post-352527","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-agreement","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-email-exchanges","tag-justice-jasmeet-singh","tag-valid-arbitration-agreement","tag-whatsapp"],"yoast_head":"\nWhatsApp\/email exchanges valid arbitration agreement:DHC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement if statutory conditions were met.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-07-05T10:30:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-07-10T05:09:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/\",\"name\":\"WhatsApp\/email exchanges valid arbitration agreement:DHC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-07-05T10:30:32+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-07-10T05:09:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement if statutory conditions were met.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"WhatsApp valid arbitration agreement\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"WhatsApp\/email exchanges valid arbitration agreement:DHC | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement if statutory conditions were met.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met","og_description":"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-07-05T10:30:32+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-07-10T05:09:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","name":"WhatsApp\/email exchanges valid arbitration agreement:DHC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp","datePublished":"2025-07-05T10:30:32+00:00","dateModified":"2025-07-10T05:09:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Delhi High Court held that exchanges over WhatsApp and email would constitute a valid arbitration agreement if statutory conditions were met.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"WhatsApp valid arbitration agreement"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":352643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/07\/dhc-on-arbitrators-discretion-to-fix-seat-of-arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":0},"title":"Arbitrator\u2019s discretion to fix venue\/seat of arbitration cannot override parties\u2019 exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitrator's discretion seat of arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324535,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/17\/del-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-despite-clause-specifying-two-arbitrators-upholds-parties-intention-to-arbitrate-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":1},"title":"Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator despite clause specifying two arbitrators; Upholds parties’ intention to arbitrate","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted Arbitration agreement specifying an even number of arbitrators cannot be a ground to render the arbitration agreement invalid. Appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) petition.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":320144,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/16\/delhi-hc-service-by-means-of-email-whatsapp-number-mentioned-in-the-agreement-is-sufficient-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court refers dispute to Arbitration after finding service by email and WhatsApp sufficient","author":"Arushi","date":"April 16, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe notice invoking arbitration sent to the same address was reported to have been delivered, but in the Speed Post report, by which the petition was sent to the address, it is stated that no such person is available at the address.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282379,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/24\/delhi-high-court-rules-reiterates-former-clause-to-prevail-over-latter-in-case-of-inconsistency-between-arbitration-clauses-in-an-agreement-legalnews-legalresearch-legalawareness\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":3},"title":"[Arbitration Agreement] Delhi High Court reiterates the law of interpretation with respect to two inconsistent clauses of a same instrument\/document\/deed","author":"Editor","date":"January 24, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Where there exists any iota of inconsistency between two provisions of a same instrument, the former clause shall prevail over the latter one","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":317817,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/19\/delhi-hc-non-signatory-guarantor-to-be-impleaded-as-party-is-for-arbitral-tribunal-to-decide-scctimes\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":4},"title":"Issue of non-signatory guarantor to be impleaded as party to arbitration is for arbitral tribunal to decide: Delhi High Court","author":"Arushi","date":"March 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cPrima facie, Respondents 3-5 are a veritable party to the loan agreement as they are connected with the loan documents and form part of the loan transaction.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330056,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/04\/delhi-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-in-petition-against-national-highway-and-infrastructure-development-corporation-ltd\/","url_meta":{"origin":352527,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court appoints Sole Arbitrator in petition against the National Highway and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"As per Clause 26.2 of the Agreement, the Chairman\/Managing Director of the Board of Directors of Contractors was supposed to do the conciliation and not the committee constituted by NHIDCL.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352527","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=352527"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/352527\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/352915"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=352527"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=352527"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=352527"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}