1 arbp-666-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 666 OF 2011. Muhammed Koya S/o. Ali Muhammed. ..Petitioner. vs. L and T Finance Limited. ..Respondent. .... Mr. Abhijeet Desai, i/b. P.V. Nelson Rajan, for Petitioner. Ms. S.I. Joshi, for Respondent. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 13TH OCTOBER 2011. P.C. : The above Arbitration Petition is filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same is taken up for Admission. 2. The Respondent L ad T Finance Limited initiated the arbitration proceedings arising out of a Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 14th June 2007 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,79,338/- as on 12th January 2010 along with interest thereon as agreed between the parties under the said Agreement. The claim of the Respondent is allowed by the learned Arbitrator by his Award dated 16th December 2010. The Petitioner has therefore filed the above Petition for setting aside of the said Award dated 16th December 2010. 3. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner first 2 arbp-666-11 submitted that the Petitioner has not received any notice from the Respondent informing him that the matter has been referred to Arbitration. To this, the learned Advocate for the Respondent pointed out that the notice dated 26th August 2010 which is at page 48 of the Petition was served on the Petitioner and the Respondent has also received an acknowledgment from the Petitioner. Thereupon, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submitted that since the Advocate for the Petitioner has subsequently appeared before the learned Arbitrator, he is not pressing his submission that the Petitioner had not received any notice from the Respondent as regards the Arbitration. 4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner next contended that the main grievance of the Petitioner against the Award dated 16th December 2010 is that the learned Arbitrator has passed the impugned Award without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner was represented before the learned Arbitrator by his Advocate Shri Rehman Shaikh on 11th November 2010. On that day, the Advocate for the Petitioner sought time to file his Vakalatnama and also his reply. The learned Arbitrator acceded to the request of the Advocate for the Petitioner and adjourned the matter to 6th December 2010. On 6th December 2010, Shri Ravi Savle, Advocate for the Petitioner appeared before the learned Arbitrator and filed his Vakalatnama. However, he did not file any reply on behalf of the Petitioner. Instead he sought time on the ground that the parties were carrying on negotiations in the matter. The learned Arbitrator once again acceded to the request of the 3 arbp-666-11 Petitioner and adjourned the matter to 14th December 2010 for filing reply and final arguments. On 14th December 2010, the Petitioner not only did not file any reply but his Advocate was also not present before the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator therefore proceeded with the hearing ex-parte and passed his Award which is impugned herein on the ground that the learned Arbitrator did not give a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to appear and present his case before the Arbitrator. 6. From the admitted facts set out in paragraph 5 above, it is clearly established that the Arbitrator has on two occasions acceded to the request of the Petitioner’s Advocates and has granted time to the Petitioner to file his reply. The learned Arbitrator had admittedly posted the matter to 14th December 2010 to enable the Petitioner to file his reply and for final arguments. However, it is only when the Petitioner and his Advocate failed to file any reply on 14th December 2010 and also failed to appear before the Arbitrator, on that day, that the Arbitrator proceeded to pass his Award in the matter. In view thereof, the submission on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned Arbitrator has not given a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to present his case and has thereby violated the principles of natural justice, is untenable, baseless and therefore rejected. In view thereof, no case is made out by the Petitioner for quashing and/or setting aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 16th December 2010 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Petition is dismissed. [ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]