arbp574-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.574 OF 2010 Govind Prasad Bang .. Petitioner Versus Chetan Kumar Rathi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.J.Thorat for petitioner Mr.S.K.Jain with Ms.S.A.Mumbhat for respondents CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28th FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. 1] The petitioner has impugned the Award only on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal has not given proper notice of the arbitral proceedings and even otherwise, the petitioner was unable to present his case. 2] It is stated that this Award has been rendered after the matter was remanded by this Court. Mr.Thorat in support of this petition took strong exception to the recording by the Tribunal on September 10, 2009 that the matter is closed for passing of the Award. He submits that the Tribunal in the minutes of the third hearing dated 10th September 2009, rejected petitioner's application for adjournment on the ground that he has moved High Court arbp574-10.doc 2 against the order dated 10th August 2009 by filing arbitration petition No.1010 of 2009 and the matter is sub-judice. He submits that there has been no opportunity given to the petitioner inasmuch as immediately after the minutes were received, he addressed a letter on 11th September 2009 that the Tribunal rejected the application for adjournment at 5.30 pm. There was no hearing in the matter and only an application for adjournment was made. The petitioner had given that application and, thereafter, left the venue. However, the Tribunal has immediately thereafter forwarded the Award. Such an award is clearly vitiated and for the reasons set out in the petition and the grounds canvassed and noted hereinabove. 3] There is no substance in this contention. The award indicates that the petitioner was respondent/ constituent of the applicant Chetan Kumar Rathi. The claim was to the tune of Rs. 22,09,658.03 which amount was claimed from the petitioner. This was the claim arising out of trading in commodities from 18th April 2008 to 2nd May 2008. The earlier award was made on 18th February 2009. That Award came to be set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal. The Court fixed the time frame for making of the Award. 4] The Award in para 3 states that hearing was held on 10th September 2009 at which the petitioner was present in person. The parties were heard and the matter was closed for passing award. The Award refers to the claim and the version of the petitioner and, arbp574-10.doc 3 thereafter, concludes that the respondent applicant has proved that the trading in Gold and Crude oil as shown in the contract note was undertaken and the said contract note was delivered. He has proved the claim to the extent indicated in the Award. The Tribunal has referred to the entire documentary evidence and has found fault with the conduct of the petitioner also. The Award sets out detailed reasons as to why the claim has been awarded. It is, therefore, clear that the recording of the events by the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be brushed aside on the basis of some oral statements and arguments made before me. It is not proved that the petitioner was denied any opportunity of presenting his case. The replies are already on record and were considered by the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal has recorded in the minutes dated 10th September 2009 that the petitioners submitted an application for adjourning the matter on the ground that he has moved an arbitration petition. The Tribunal adverted to the earlier directions of the High Court to conclude the proceedings and render the award within three weeks from 22nd July 2009. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was in no error in rejecting the application for adjournment. The approach of the Tribunal cannot be said to be such as would enable me to term that it proceeded in undue haste or in complete disregard to the principles of natural justice. 5] In these circumstances and finding that there is no substance in the sole contention raised before me, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. arbp574-10.doc 4 6] In view of dismissal of the arbitration petition, the chamber summons does not survive and the same is dismissed as such. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)