A special leave petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, challenged an award on the ground of non-service of notice. The court examined the record, noted that notices were served but the petitioners did not appear, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
Petition for setting aside the arbitral award dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 16.7.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
O.P.No.740 of 2013 1 G.Girishkumar 2 Mrs.G.Girishkumar Sis/o.G.Girishkumar ... Petitioners Vs. 1 Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep. by its authorized representative Mr.R.Muruganandham, No.6, L.B. Road, Sorrento Building, 2nd Floor, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. 2 C.A.Ravichandran Sole Arbitrator, No.90, Peters Road, New College Shopping Complex, Chennai 600 014. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Original Petition is filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral award, dated 28.08.2012, passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator in A.C.P.(EF/CAR) 308/2011.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent No.1 : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan ******
2
O R D E R
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for pass over in
the morning to argue the matter. When the matter was taken up during post lunch session, none appeared for the petitioners. Hence, I am inclined to dispose of the petition on merit.
by the Arbitrator is that, ''no notice was served and no opportunity was given to
the petitioners'' to defend the reference.
in fact considered the entire documents and passed the award. It is clear from the award that notice has been served on the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act and copy of the notice was filed as Ex.A6 and thereafter, the learned Arbitrator issued notice to the petitioners through registered post and the same was returned unserved, marked as Ex.A7. The first petitioner herein despite service of notice did not appear before the Arbitrator and the second petitioner left the place. Thereafter, the learned Arbitrator proceeded the matter exparte and decided the matter on the basis of documents. Therefore, the contention that no notice has been served on the petitioners is found to be false.
3
the petition is dismissed. No costs.
16.7.2019
Speaking/Non Speaking order Index: Yes/No vaan
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
4
vaan
O.P.No.740 of 2013
Dated: 16.7.2019
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition to set aside the arbitral award on the ground of non-service of notice and lack of opportunity should be allowed.
Whether the allegation that no notice was served to the petitioners is tenable in light of the arbitral award proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G.Girishkumar and Mrs.G.Girishkumar
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
C.A.Ravichandran
N.Sathish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
