M K ENTERPRISES Vs. CREATIVE KNIT CRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award dated 29.5.1996 for Rs.6,25,983.75 as rule of the court. By way of I.A.12410/96, respondents have challenged the validity of the award by raising the following objections;-

(2.) The very fact that the respondents had appeared before the arbitrator and started the compromise talks with the petitioner shows that the respondents participated in the proceedings that were pending before the arbitrator. Thus it was well was aware of the claim of /the 'petitioner. In other words, respondents had submitted to the arbitration proceedings and rightly so as the perusal of the contract shows that it contains arbitration clause. Perusal of the record also shows that the original claim of the petitioner was for Rs.9,35,765 inclusive of the interest but the arbitrator awarded Rs.6.25,983.75. It is contended that 'during the compromise talks, the petitioner had agreed to accept Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, the objection that the petitioner never agreed for arbitration or that he was not a member of Delhi Hindustan Mercantile .Association and therefore was not governed by the Arbitration clause has no substance. As regards the objection of the respondents that no notice was given to the respondents before proceeding ex parte, I find no merit. Once the respondent submitted itself before /the arbitrator and participated in the arbitration proceedings, it was not obligatory on the part of the arbitrator to serve another notice before proceeding ex parte. However, the record shows that the arbitrator duly served a notice upon the respondent by way of registered process, A.D. card of the registered cover shows that the same was received by one of the employee of the respondent and another notice was received by one of the partners. It shows that the arbitrator was conscious of the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act of 1940 before proceeding ex parte.

(3.) The next surviving objection is the question whether the award is bad in law because of having been passed beyond the prescribed and stipulated period of four months or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the letter dated 13.12.1995 sent by the respondent to the petitioner wherein there is a reference of discussion between the parties for compromising the matter. The relevant extracts of the notice read as under:-