Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the sole Arbitrator to furnish a copy of the arbitral award dated 18.04.2015. The petitioner argued that he was not served with notice during the arbitration proceedings and was set ex parte after paper publication. He claimed that he was deprived of the opportunity to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents contended that the petitioner had provided his registered address as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, and notices were sent to this address. The court noted that the petitioner had been aware of the award since May 2015 when a copy was sent to him, and he failed to take timely action to challenge it. The court found that the petitioner’s claims of not residing at the registered address were false, as he had consistently used that address in various documents. The court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the petitioner could not claim non-receipt of the award when he had been informed of the proceedings and had received the award copy. The court emphasized the importance of notifying any change of address to the Arbitrator and upheld the validity of the service made to the registered address.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Service of Notice - Requirement of Proper Notice - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34 - The petitioner contended that he was not served with notice during arbitration proceedings and was set ex parte. The court held that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had received a copy of the award, thus failing to challenge it in time. Held that the petitioner cannot claim non-receipt of the award (Paras 21-24).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to challenge the arbitral award due to alleged non-service of notice and award.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the petitioner's claims regarding non-service of the award. The court held that the petitioner had been informed of the award and had failed to take timely action to challenge it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Law Points
- Arbitration proceedings
- service of notice
- ex parte award
- Section 34 application
- registered address compliance
