1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1353 OF 2009 Smita Pradeep Karwarkar ...Petitioner. Vs. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr. Pavan Pandye for the Petitioner. Ms. Sonal with Mr. Prasad Das i/by M/s. Goenka Law Associates for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 27th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 Heard finally. 2 The Petitioner has challenged the award mainly on the ground that there was no proper notice served. In the award, the name of the Respondent is Smita Pradeep Karwarkar, whereas, the notice shown the name as “Smita Pradeep Karmarkar”. Therefore, the refusal, at the relevant time, just cannot be stated to be incorrect or unintentional. The question is, a proper notice need to be served upon with the proper name and address and in spite of this, the party refuses to accept the notice, then it can be treated as proper service. But, in case like this, where admittedly the surname is shown different and in the facts and circumstances of the case, 2 the party refused to accept the notice, no fault can be found against such person, who refused the notice. 3 In view of this, I am of the view that there was no proper notice. In the result, the ex-parte award so passed, need to be set aside. 4 It is made clear that I am not expressing anything on the merits of the matter. The parties can take appropriate steps immediately, in accordance with law. 5 In the result, the petition is allowed. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)