: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.677 OF 2010 M/s. Fashion First .. Petitioner Prop. Arun Mohanlal Dalmia v/s. M/s. J.P. Textiles .. Respondent ......... Mr. M.K. Jain i/by S.R. Gelye for the petitioner Mr. L.V. Jain for respondent ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 1st APRIL, 2010. P.C. : 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). According to the respondent, he had sold goods to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 19,74,445/- and the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. The dispute came to be referred to the learned Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Learned Arbitrator took charge of the matter, gave various opportunities to the petitioner to remain present before him and : 2 : ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not interested in contesting the proceedings. He thereafter, conducted arbitration proceedings and passed an award dated 4th October, 2008. By the impugned award, the present petitioner has been ordered to pay monies as set out in the award. 2. I have heard Mr. Jain in support of his submissions for the admission of the arbitration petition. According to him, goods were never delivered to the petitioner and the agent of the petitioner has transacted with the respondent without taking the petitioner in confidence and there was no link between the petitioner and his agent and, therefore, petitioner is not liable. According to him, learned Arbitrator failed to consider this aspect of the matter and that is how he erred in passing an award. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is required to be noted that the petitioner remained absent before the learned Arbitrator though sufficient opportunity was given. As a result of this, petitioner could not place his case before the learned Arbitrator and the arbitration proceedings went ahead without any case of the petitioner being put before the learned Arbitrator. In such situation, learned Arbitrator proceeded to decide the matter on merits after considering the record, which was placed before him. To that extent, no fault can be found in the procedure followed by learned Arbitrator. : 3 : 3. In the award, there is a reference about a letter being sent by the petitioner requesting learned Arbitrator to stay the arbitration proceedings on the ground that legal proceedings in some other Court were going on. Certainly, no stay order were produced before learned Arbitrator. Hence, learned Arbitrator cannot be blamed for going ahead with the arbitration proceedings. So far as the merits of the matter are concerned, learned Arbitrator has given a speaking award and no fault can be found therein as learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to show that the award can be faulted on account of any of the circumstances as set out under Section 34 of the said Act. 4. Lastly, it was submitted that the arbitration was conducted by the learned Arbitrator in accordance with the Rules of Mumbai Textile Merchants’ Mahajan and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He submitted that there is no satisfactory material to show that learned Arbitrator was at fault to take up the arbitration. This submission cannot be accepted because, if at all, the petitioner had an objection for learned Arbitrator to go ahead with the arbitration, he could have challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator by appearing before him and calling upon learned Arbitrator to decide whether learned Arbitrator could go : 4 : ahead in the matter. In the absence of this procedure, this point raised for the first time before this Court, cannot be accepted. Having considering the matter on merits, I am inclined to observe that this is not a case where this Court should interfere and pass certain orders so as to set aside the award under Section 34 of the said Act. Hence, the petition is required to be rejected at the stage of admission by passing following order. ORDER (i) The petition is rejected at the stage of admission. (ii) There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]