FAO No. 660 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on July 08,2010. Santokh Lal Bangar and another --Appellants vs. M/s.Chauhan Finance Private Ltd. and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Viney Puri,for the appellants/applicants Mr.K.S.Dhillon,Advocate,for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, Appellants are the borrowers of a loan advanced by respondent No.1 on 29.12.1999, for purchasing a second hand tractor on the guarantee of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Since the appellants failed to make the payment of the loan, the matter was referred to respondent No.2., who was appointed as an Arbitrator. Appellant No.1 participated in the proceedings, but appellant No.2. was proceeded against ex-parte. On 24.11.2003, appellant No.1. entered into a written compromise with respondent No.1 which was taken on record of the Arbitrator. As appellant No.2 was ex-parte, after recording ex-parte evidence, the Arbitrator vide his award dated 14.6.2006 assessed the amount at Rs.4,57,800/- payable by appellant No.2 jointly and severally with appellant No.1 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 in terms of the FAO No. 660 of 2009 (O&M) 2 compromise Ex. C-16 which was formed part of the award against appellant No.1. and respondent Nos. 3 and 4, with interest @ 12% per annum from 1.10.2003 till its realization. The arbitration award was challenged by the present appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation,Act,1996 (for short, the Act), which was dismissed by the Addl.District Judge, Jalandhar. vide his order dated 30.10.2008. The present appeal has been preferred by the borrowers challenging the the arbitral award and order passed by the Civil court dismissing their objections filed under Section 34 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that against a loan of Rs.1,95,000/- taken on 29.12.1999, the Arbitrator has illegally burdened them with liability of Rs.4,57,800/-, specially when appellant No.2. was illegally proceeded against ex-parte. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. Insofar as award against appellant No.1 is concerned, that has been passed on the basis of a written compromise, which was executed by appellant No.1 along-with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (guarantors) which is available on record of the Arbitrator as Ex.C-16. Insofar as appellant No.2. is concerned, he was proceeded against ex-parte by the Arbitrator vide his order dated 24.11.2003 as notice addressed to him under the registered cover was not received back undelivered even after the expiry of period of 30 days. It was found that appellant No.1, who happens to be the real brother of appellant No.2 was appearing before the Arbitrator and filed compromise, therefore, appellant FAO No. 660 of 2009 (O&M) 3 No.2. who had tried to avoid the arbitration proceedings, could not claim innocence in order to set at naught the arbitration proceedings. As a matter of fact, learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any defect either in the award or in the order of the Civil Court which had dismissed the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. July 08,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge