: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 436 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.L-43/51 OF 2008 Dharmendra Shinde .. Petitioner v/s. Tata Motors Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Alok Bagla i/by Bagla Dandekar & Co. for the petitioner Mr. Y.R. Shah for respondent no.1 None for respondent nos.2 and 3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, JJ. MARCH, 22nd 2010. P.C. : 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 27th February, 2009 delivered by learned arbitrator Mr. Vinod Kumar Mishra under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the said Act). I have heard learned advocates on both sides. It was the principal contention of the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner was not given intimation regarding appointment of arbitrator as also intimation regarding holding of the arbitration with reference to the date and venue etc. He had also contended that the : 2 : petitioner has not borrowed any money from respondent no.1 and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount. Learned advocate for the petitioner had also raised several defenses on merits. 2. I have heard learned advocates on both sides on the question of intimation to the present petitioner. After having gone through the award, I am inclined to observe that there are no specific particulars mentioned in the award so as to hold that the petitioner was informed about the appointment of the arbitrator as also holding of the arbitration on a particular date and at particular point of time. If this be so, conducting of the arbitration proceedings will have to be treated as without notice to the petitioner and subsequent proceedings of the arbitration are in violation of principals of natural justice. Consequently order impugned in this petition will have to be set aside in order to protect the interest of both sides. Intimation regarding appointment of arbitrator and intimation regarding conducting the venue and the date of the arbitration proceedings shall be informed to the petitioner as well as the petitioner’s advocate Mrs. Bagla Dandekar & Company and service of such notice upon petitioner will have to be treated as good service. 3. Since the award is being set aside, arguments advance by learned : 3 : advocate for the petitioner on merits are not being considered. Merits of the matter are left open. Hence, the following orde is passed. ORDER (i) Award dated 20th February, 2009 delivered by learned arbitrator Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra is set aside. If the respondents intend to go for arbitration, they are free to do so by appointing a new arbitrator. (ii)Notice regarding appointment of new arbitrator shall be served upon the petitioner as well as learned advocates M/s. Bagla Dandekar & Company. If arbitrator is appointed, notice of holding of the arbitration shall also be served upon the petitioner as well as M/s. Bagla Dandekar and Company, being the petitioner’s advocate. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]