Service Through Email and WhatsApp is Valid Service of Notice.

Petitioner: M/S Lease Plan India Private Limited

Respondent: M/S Rudraksha Pharma Distributor & Ors.

Court: Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

Date: April 10, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

Citation: ARB.P. 1273/2023

FACTS:

• The Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, a partnership firm represented by Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, were the parties to the lease agreement.
• The agreement, dated March 21, 2018, concerned Respondent No. 1’s lease of automobiles from Petitioner. It also had a clause (Clause 10.2) requiring arbitration to follow the rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre and to take place in New Delhi. Due to disagreements between the parties, a legal notice came into play requesting arbitration.
• Petitioner was instructed to serve Respondents by email and WhatsApp at the addresses and phone numbers listed in the agreement by an order dated January 12, 2024. Petitioner filed an affidavit of service dated February 22, 2024, which demonstrated that e-mail and WhatsApp service was affected on February 20, 2024.
• Later, by order dated March 6, 2024, the Petitioner was also allowed to serve the Respondents at the address listed in the parties’ memo by registered and expedited mail. Nonetheless, the Joint Registrar noted in the order dated April 04, 2024 that the valid service had not been impacted, according to the Speed Post monitoring data.

ISSUE:

The primary issue of the case revolves around the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to adjudicate disputes arising from a Lease Agreement between the parties.

JUDGMENT:

• The Court affirmed that the Respondents were properly served via email and WhatsApp, as evidenced by the agreement’s details and a sworn affidavit by the Petitioner’s representative.
• Although the arbitration notice sent to the Respondents’ address was reported delivered, a Speed Post report indicated otherwise.
• The Court deemed service valid via email and WhatsApp, rendering further wait for Respondent appearance unnecessary. Prima facie, an arbitration agreement existed, and arbitration proceedings against Respondents 1 and 2 were properly initiated.
• The Court referred the disputes to arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), with an arbitrator to be nominated from DIAC’s panel. Arbitration proceedings would follow DIAC rules, including arbitrator remuneration, and the arbitrator was to provide a declaration before commencing.
• As Respondents hadn’t appeared, they would be served according to DIAC Rules in arbitration. All rights and contentions regarding claim maintainability and merits were left for arbitration adjudication.

CONCLUSION:

The Court upheld the validity of service via email and WhatsApp as per the Petitioner’s affidavit, despite discrepancies in Speed Post delivery.