KAMAL GHANSHYAMDAS BHATIA Vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act in short), challenging the award dated December 5, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Petition No. RFL/Mortgage/LRN/L -3/540.

(2.) SOME of the relevant facts are that, the petitioner No. 1 had offered a loan of Rs. 5 Crores to the respondent. The EMI was fixed for 84 months at Rs. 8,90,142/ - per month. The petitioner No. 1 defaulted in making the monthly instalments. The respondent had invoked the arbitration clause and appointed an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had held the first proceedings on August 12, 2013 on which date, notice was issued for August 27, 2013. Since the registered A.D./Post was not received back, nor anyone was present for the respondent, the matter was adjourned by the learned Arbitrator to September 20, 2013. On September 20, 2013, no proceedings could take place. When the proceedings were held on January 10, 2014, a representation was made by Mr. Rajneesh Diwan, Advocate for the petitioners herein. The proceedings were adjourned to January 21, 2014. On January 21, 2014, statement of claim was filed by the respondent herein and the matter was adjourned to February 14, 2014 when time was sought by the counsel appearing for the petitioners for filing reply and matter was adjourned to March 7, 2014, on which date, last opportunity was given for filing reply to the petitioners herein.

(3.) THE petitioners, on April 1, 2014, filed an application under Section 16 of the Act. The learned Arbitrator heard the arguments on the application and reserved the application for orders to come on April 16, 2014. It appears that the respondent herein also filed an application under Section 17 of the Act. Be that as it may, no order on the application of the petitioners was passed by the learned Arbitrator on the said date. The matter was adjourned to April 21, 2014. On April 21, 2014, no -one was present for the petitioners herein. Vide order dated April 21, 2014, the learned Arbitrator allowed the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 17 and dismissed the application under Section 16 filed by the petitioners herein. It is also seen from the arbitral record, which has been produced in the Court, that pursuant to the passing of the order dated April 21, 2014, neither the order dated April 21, 2014 was sent to the petitioners herein nor any communication/information was sent by the learned Arbitrator for holding the proceedings on May 21, 2014.