on 4th July, 2015. This notice also was ignored by the Petitioner. It has been contended for the first time in the rejoinder that this notice is never received by the Petitioner. This is despite the fact that this notice as well as its acknowledgment has been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondent. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this notice was not received by the Petitioner, the same would make no difference. As mentioned earlier, the notice dated 21st May, 2015 was admittedly received by the Petitioner. He was well aware of the arbitration proceedings. This becomes further clear from the letter written by the Petitioner to the Arbitrator dated 29th June, 2015 wherein the Petitioner contends that the documents before the Arbitral Tribunal were never been signed by him and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enter upon the reference. Looking to these facts, I find no merit in the contention of the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not duly served, and therefore, was unable to effectively represent himself before the Arbitral Tribunal. This contention, therefore, stands rejected.
