SIDHI INDUSTRIES & ORS Vs. RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Ashish Virmani, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the challenge to the impugned award dated 30th Aug., 2014 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator is essentially on the following grounds:

(2.) In reply to the above arguments, it is pointed out by Mr. Ajay Uppal, learned counsel for Respondent, that by not objecting to the continuation of the arbitration proceedings beyond 26th Nov. 2013, the Petitioners had in fact acquiesced in it and cannot be now heard to object. Reference is made to Sec. 4 (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act'). It is pointed out that a reply was filed by the Petitioners in the arbitration proceedings on 31st March, 2014 i.e., much beyond the stipulated date of completion of the arbitration proceedings. Thereafter, they participated in the final arguments of the arbitration proceedings on 25th July, 2014 and the Award was reserved.

(3.) It is further pointed out by Mr. Uppal that both NBCC Limited Vs. J.G. Engineering Private Limited (supra) and Bharat Oman Refineries Limited Vs. M/s. Mantech Consultants (supra) turned on their peculiar facts and are distinguishable. As regards the POA not authorizing Ms. Megha Gulati to institute the arbitration proceedings, attention has been drawn to the latter dated 14th Aug. 2012 whereby the Respondent ratified the action of Ms. Megha Gulati initiating the arbitration proceedings, after noticing that the POA did not clearly authorize her to do so. In any event, it is submitted that this is a curable defect as held by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660. As regards the insufficient stamping of the LA, it is submitted by Mr. Uppal that no such ground was urged before the learned Arbitrator. It has been raised for the first time in the present petition under Sec. 34 of the Act.