1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Petition No.937 of 2010 Mr.Noor Shaikh Mohammed Hussain .. Petitioner v/s. Tata Motors Limited ..Respondents Ms. Disha Karambar for the Petitioner Mr. Chinmay Gupte i/b. Mohit Gadkari for the Respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 15th June , 2010 P.C. : 1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), so as to challenge the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, being Award dated 23.12.2009. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides at the stage of admission. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that statement of Claim was not served upon the petitioner. 2 The petitioner, in the course of hearing had to admit that the first date of hearing of the Arbitration Proceeding was on 19.9.2009 and that the Petitioner had received notice of the same which is annexed by the Petitioner at Exhibit G to the petition. The Petitioner had to admit that the petitioner could not go before the learned Arbitrator on 19.9.2009 and thereafter according to the petitioner, the petitioner made number of attempts to contact the Arbitrator. No such record is created by the petitioner in support of his said statement. The argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statement of claim was not served on the petitioner and thus ex-parte award was passed cannot be accepted. If petitioner would have remained present before the Arbitrator on 19.9.2009, surely the learned Arbitrator would have served upon the petitioner statement of claim and the proceedings would have followed thereafter. Once the petitioner has failed to attend the proceeding on 19.9.2009 and even thereafter, certainly learned Arbitrator was right in going ahead with proceeding, may be in the absence of the petitioner. Hence the ground that ex-parte award was passed cannot be accepted. The petitioner contended that efforts were made to settle the matter before the Arbitration proceeding commenced. This would go to show that 3 the petitioner had practically admitted his liability. Even otherwise , in para 7 of this petition there is admission that the petitioner could not repay the loan instalments in time for three months. 3. Having considered the text of the award and having considered the arguments on behalf of the Counsels on both the sides, I am inclined to observe that no ground is made out for interference with the award which is passed and therefore the petition need not be admitted. 4. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to settle the matter with the respondents. Petitioner is free to contact the respondents. It is hoped that the respondent would offer reasonable terms for settlement. Hence following order is passed. ORDER Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]