FAO No.3213 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3213 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2010 **** M/s Punjab Reliance Investment Pvt. Ltd., G.T. Road Jalandhar, through its Managing Director. . . . . Appellant VS. Smt. Gurdev Kaur and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.M.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Gurinderjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against order of the District Judge, Jalandhar dated 07.01.2008 whereby objections filed by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) against the Arbitral award dated 19.7.2001, has been allowed. In short, the facts of the case are that appellant entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 31.7.2000 with Gurdev Kaur wife of Nachhatar Singh in terms of which she had purchased truck make TATA model 2001. Nachhatar Singh and Renu Goyal stood as FAO No.3213 of 2008 -2- guarantors. The address of Gurdev Kaur (borrower) and Nachhatar Singh (Guarantor) was specifically mentioned in the hire purchase agreement as resident of 17, Jawahar Ke Road, Mansa, District Mansa. There was some dispute between the parties with regard to the payment, therefore, the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator at the instance of the appellant. The Arbitrator served the respondents (borrower and the guarantor) on the address ‘Preet Nagar, Ward No.1, College Road, Mansa’. The Regd. letters could not be served and were returned back to the Arbitrator. Then the Arbitrator published notice for the purpose of service upon the respondents in the local Newspaper namely ‘Uttam Hindu’ dated 20.4.2001. Thereafter, the respondents were proceeded against ex parte and after considering the ex parte evidence, the Arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs.1,38,474/- to the appellant with interest @ 36% per annum w.e.f. 26.1.2000 till final payment of the entire dues along with costs of litigation. Aggrieved against the Arbitral award dated 19.7.2001, the respondents filed objection petition under Section 34 of the Act in which it was, inter alia, alleged that notice was not served upon them on the address given in the hire purchase agreement and secondly publication in the Newspaper was not sufficient as it was local Newspaper of Jalandhar whereas the respondents were the residents of District Mansa. The learned Court allowed the objection petition by observing that the service was not effected as per the provision of Section 3 of the Act. The appellant has challenged the impugned order before this Court, inter alia, on the ground that notice was served upon the same address as mentioned in the objection petition filed by the FAO No.3213 of 2008 -3- respondents under Section 34 of the Act. He has also pointed out from the record that in the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act the respondent has given the address of ‘Preet Nagar, Ward No.1, College Road, Mansa’. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that address of ‘Preet Nagar, Ward No.1, College Road, Mansa’ was mentioned in the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act but it is also mentioned that now the appellants are residing at ‘Ward No.17, Jawahar Ke Road, Mansa’. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the address given in the hire purchase agreement is of ‘Ward No.17, Jawahar Ke Road, Mansa’ on which no notice was issued by the Arbitrator intimating them about the arbitration proceedings. Section 3 of the Act provides that unless otherwise agreed by the parties, any written communication would be deemed to have been received, if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at his place of business, habitual residence or mailing address and if none of the place referred in clause (a) can be found after making a reasonable inquiry, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it. The hire purchase agreement does not indicate any agreement between the parties with regard to address of communication of any notice etc., therefore, the last address which has been mentioned in the agreement itself has to be considered as FAO No.3213 of 2008 -4- the address of the respondents on which admittedly no notice was issued by the Arbitrator rather he has tried to serve the respondents on the addresses on which they are not residing. In my view, the learned Court below has recorded a finding of fact on the appreciation of record available before it and accordingly held that the service upon the respondents was not in accordance with law inasmuch as they have been proceeded against ex parte in the absence of service even by publication in Newspaper in which notice was published because it has circulation only in Jalandhar being local Newspaper whereas the respondents are the residents of District Mansa. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present case and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 07, 2010 JUDGE Vivek