#Notice Requirement

The Delhi High Court ruled that a flawed Section 21 notice under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not strip an arbitral tribunal of its jurisdiction when a valid arbitration agreement is in place. The court proceeded to appoint a sole arbitrator, clarifying that procedural defects in notice service cannot override the parties’ arbitration agreement.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court upheld the acquittal under Section 138 of the NI Act, holding that a notice must specify the exact cheque amount to be valid. It further clarified that any alteration in the cheque initialled by the accused does not void the instrument, refining the evidentiary requirements for dishonoured cheque cases.

Calcutta High Court rules that any ex parte interim order passed without notice to a caveator is procedurally invalid and must be recalled immediately, regardless of the opposing party’s knowledge. The judgment underscores that lodging a caveat under Section 148A CPC imposes a mandatory duty on courts to issue notice before granting relief, failing which the order is liable to be set aside.

ITAT Lucknow quashes an assessment order for failure to issue the mandatory Section 143(2) notice, reinforcing that jurisdictional compliance is non-negotiable regardless of return filing timelines. The ruling underscores that procedural lapses render assessments void ab initio, impacting taxpayers facing re-assessment proceedings.

MP High Court rules that land mutation orders passed without notice to affected parties violate principles of natural justice under Section 115 of the MP Land Revenue Code. The court set aside the impugned orders, emphasizing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in revenue proceedings, directly impacting landowners and administrative authorities.

Madras High Court quashes an ex parte possession order under SARFAESI Act, ruling that secured creditors cannot take physical possession of a borrower's property without notice while DRT proceedings are pending. The court directed the borrower to deposit Rs. 14,94,138 and mandated expeditious disposal of the DRT application, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in secured asset enforcement.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that contractual termination clauses permitting termination 'without cause' do not override explicit notice requirements in the agreement. The ruling reinforces that procedural compliance remains binding, protecting consultants and service providers from abrupt contract withdrawals without prior notice.

Bombay High Court stays coercive possession steps by Canara Bank without 15-day notice to borrower, citing impact on children's examinations and pending FIR.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that criminal proceedings against developers in unauthorized colonies cannot commence without mandatory 15-day notice and intimation to Sub Registrar.