MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the learned ADJ vide which the objections of the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award passed by the arbitrator, were partly allowed.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants had not received the notice about the proceedings having been initiated before the arbitrator and consequently an ex parte award was passed against him. It has been contended by him that since principles of natural justice were not followed, therefore, the arbitration award passed again him is void ab initio.

(3.) I have gone through the said judgment. There is no doubt that the case which has been sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the apex court has observed that the award which has been passed by the arbitrator without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent in the said case was illegal and void, but the question is as to whether a party to an arbitration proceeding has been served or not, is essentially a question of fact. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the fact that the appellants had taken a loan of Rs.15 lakhs from the respondent and mortgaged the property. In the loan agreement, there was an arbitration clause and the appellants had given their correspondence address of Rohini. Since the appellants had defaulted in payment of loan, the respondent appointed an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause who entered into the reference. The arbitrator is purported to have issued two notices to the appellants at the Rohini address on 04.04.2011 and 08.05.2011. Both these notices were received by the appellant inasmuch as the acknowledgement card which had gone along with the notices was served on one Ms.Rajini and another person whose signatures were illegible.