1 ARBP 32.08 kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.32 OF 2008 ... Jagjit Singh Ghumman & Anr. ...Petitioners v/s. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. ...Respondent ... Mr.Jyotsna N. Pandhi for the Petitioners. None for the Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 8th July, 2011 P.C.: 1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award made by the arbitrator directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.6,66,737/- with interest to the Respondent. Perusal of the award shows that after the arbitrator was appointed as per the contract between the parties, the arbitrator sent a notice to the Respondent on his 2 ARBP 32.08 last known address. It is clear from the communication dated 8-2-2007 addressed by the Petitioner to the Arbitrator that the Petitioner had received a notice from the Arbitrator and was aware of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The Petitioner, however, in stead of appearing before the Arbitrator, threatened the Arbitrator that since the Petitioner has not appointed the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator should not proceed further and that the arbitrator was out to cheat the Petitioner and the Petitioner called upon the Arbitrator to submit apology to him and he threatened that if the Arbitrator does not tender apology he will file F.I.R. against the Arbitrator for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In this situation, therefore, as the Petitioner refused to appear before the learned Arbitrator, the learned Arbitrator proceeded further and on the basis of the papers produced before him by the claimant made the award. 3. I see no reason to disturb this award, because 3 ARBP 32.08 admittedly the Petitioner was served with the proceedings from the Arbitrator. He was aware of the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore,it was for him to appear before the learned Arbitrator. Had he appeared before the Arbitrator, it was open to him to raise all objections that were available to him under the law in relation to the claim and also in relation to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to proceed further in the matter. But he chose not to appear before the learned Arbitrator. In my opinion, therefore, he cannot be permitted to challenge the award. Petition has no substance. It is dismissed. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)