THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25925 of 2009 ORDER: The father of the first petitioner, by name, Rangaiah, obtained two loans of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2004 from the Citizen Cooperative Society Limited, the second respondent herein. There was irregularity in payment of instalments. The principal borrower died. The second respondent initiated arbitration proceedings before the first respondent against the first petitioner herein as legal representative of the principal borrower and the second petitioner as guarantor. The notices were served on the petitioners and they engaged an Advocate and the matter underwent several adjournments. Ultimately, on 08.08.2009, the first respondent passed an award holding that the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.35,00,000/- towards principal and about Rs.30,00,000/- towards interest. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. They contend that there was representation on every date of adjournment on their behalf except on one day and that ex parte award was passed on the day on which their counsel was not present. The second respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit. It is stated that the observation made by the first respondent as regards the appearance of the parties and their counsel is misinterpreted. According to them, the matter underwent quite a large number of adjournments and only on eight occasions, the counsel for the petitioners represented. The dates on which there was no representation for the petitioners were also mentioned. Heard Mr. K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. S.R. Sanku learned counsel for the second respondent. The petitioners do not dispute their liability to pay the principal amount. Their grievance is mainly about determination of the rate of interest and the calculation thereof. It is not as if the Tribunal did not give any opportunity to them. It appears that there was some default on the part of their counsel on certain dates of hearing. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that there was no representation for the petitioners. Naturally the petitioners have a genuine grievance. The course of action open to the petitioners was to approach the first respondent herself to reopen the matter in case there existed valid grounds. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioners do not dispute their obligation to pay the principal amount and that the impugned award was passed ex parte, this Court is of the view that the following arrangement would serve the interest of the parties and would avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that: (a) In case the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs and fifth thousand only) on or before 01.06.2010 and another sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs and fifth thousand only) on or before 15.07.2010 that portion of the impugned award dated 08.08.2009, which determined the rate of interest and calculation thereof shall stand set aside. The second respondent shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited without furnishing any security. (b) In case condition (a) is complied with, the matter be reopened and the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the rate of interest duly giving an opportunity to the petitioners. (c) If the petitioners fail to pay the instalments as directed in condition (a), the impugned award dated 08.08.2009 shall become final and it shall be open to the second respondent to enforce the same. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21st April, 2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN