Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Asset International (a division of Aptech Ltd.), filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award dated 31st March, 2008. The respondent, M/s. Universal Computer, had been appointed as a franchisee by the petitioner under a franchise agreement dated 30th October, 2002. Disputes arose, and the respondent issued a notice on 24th October, 2005 proposing names for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The petitioner objected to the proposed names. The respondent then appointed Mr. Suresh Kamble as sole arbitrator. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator, which was dismissed by the High Court on 6th October, 2006, holding that since the respondent had already appointed an arbitrator, the remedy was not under Section 11. The arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration and passed an award on 31st March, 2008. The petitioner challenged the award on the ground that it was not served with notice of the arbitration proceedings because the notices were sent to its old address, whereas the petitioner had changed its address with effect from 21st July, 2007 and had filed Form No.18 with the Registrar of Companies. The court held that the petitioner had not communicated the change of address to the respondent, and therefore service at the old address was valid. The court also noted that the petitioner had knowledge of the arbitration proceedings and had participated in the appointment process. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Service of Notice - Change of Address - Section 34, Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner challenged the arbitral award on the ground that it was not served with notice of the arbitration proceedings as the notice was sent to its old address. The court held that since the petitioner had changed its address with effect from 21st July, 2007 but did not communicate the change to the respondent, the service of notice at the old address was valid. The court also noted that the petitioner had knowledge of the arbitration proceedings and had participated in the appointment of the arbitrator. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award dated 31st March, 2008 is liable to be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not served with notice of the arbitration proceedings due to change of address.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The arbitral award dated 31st March, 2008 is upheld.
Law Points
- Service of notice at old address is valid if change of address not communicated to other party
- Arbitral award cannot be set aside on ground of lack of notice if party had knowledge of proceedings
- Section 34 petition must be filed within limitation period.
