The Delhi High Court addressed whether a respondent can challenge the validity of an arbitration invocation notice by claiming it was sent to a wrong address, when the respondent had itself provided that same address in a separate legal proceeding.

The Facts

In this case arising from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Narendra Kumar Prajapat, the respondent challenged a Section 11 application for appointment of an arbitrator, arguing that the arbitration invocation notice under Section 21 was sent to an incorrect address and was therefore invalid.

The Court's Finding

The Delhi High Court rejected this argument, noting that the respondent had provided the very same address in another proceeding. A party cannot benefit from providing an incorrect address and then use that same irregularity as a ground to challenge the arbitration process.

Principle Established

• A party that provides an address in legal proceedings is bound by notices sent to that address.
• The doctrine of estoppel applies — parties cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously.
• Procedural challenges to arbitration notices will be scrutinised against the party's own conduct.
• This prevents parties from using address technicalities to delay or frustrate arbitration.

A party that provides a wrong address cannot later object to notices sent to that address.