ELP Dispute Resolution Update

This update focuses on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh[1], and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Raheja Developers Limited v. Proto Developers and Technologies Limited & Ors[2].

In Shafhi Mohammad, one of the issues that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the requirement of furnishing a certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory for electronic evidence to be admissible. The Supreme Court ruled that “the applicability of the requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by the court wherever interest of justice so justifies.”

In Raheja Developers Limited, the issue which arose for consideration before the Delhi High Court was whether, in light of section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), it would have jurisdiction to entertain the application though the parties had previously filed a section 11 application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In light of the factual matrix, the Delhi High Court upheld the maintainability of the application and reiterated that section 42 of the Act would not be attracted merely because a section 11 application was filed.

We trust you will find this an interesting read. For any queries or comments on this dispute resolution update, please feel free to contact us at drupdate@elp-in.com.

We welcome your feedback and comments.