1 arbp247-08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.247 OF 2008 Mihir D. Mehta ....Petitioner V/s. Silkon Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.Pankaj S. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr.Lalit Jain i/b Mr.Rakesh G. Jain for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 4TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition for setting aside the award dated 11.6.2007 made by the arbitral tribunal consisting of three arbitrators. The arbitrators have made an award in the sum of Rs.3,83,135/- together with interest in favour of the respondents. 2. The disputes pertain to an agreement under which the respondents sold and deliver to the petitioner the fabrics. The petitioner having failed and neglected to make payment for the same, the disputes arose between the parties which were referred to the arbitral tribunal. 3. It is contended that the arbitral tribunal failed and neglected to take into consideration the relevant evidence including a debit note issued by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the debit note was raised on account of the goods being defective. 4. The arbitral tribunal has dealt with the contention in detail. The 2 arbp247-08 debit note is specifically referred to by the arbitral tribunal. After considering the entire evidence and upon doing so, the arbitral tribunal rejected the defence regarding the goods being defective. For instance, it was found that the grievance regarding that the goods being defective was not raised at the relevant time or in respect of the entire quantity. The debit note was raised only subsequently. The arbitral tribunal came to a conclusion that the defence was false. 5. The above findings are on questions of fact which fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. It is not possible to hold that the findings are perverse or absurd or without taking into account the relevant evidence. 6. It was then contended that the tribunal did not take into consideration the evidence of the broker. This is also incorrect. The evidence of the broker has been specifically referred to in the award and considered. The arbitral tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence of the goods being defective because of the defective material. The fact that the petitioner’s subsequent purchasers returned the goods would not establish that the goods supplied by the respondent were defective. This again is a question of appreciation of evidence which falls within the jurisdiction of the arbitrators and cannot, in the facts of the case, be interfered with. 7. It was contended that the award was an ex-parte award. It was not. Admittedly, the parties appeared before the arbitral tribunal on several occasions. Merely because the word “ex-parte” is used by the arbitral tribunal would not make a difference. 8. It was further submitted that on the last date of hearing, the 3 arbp247-08 petitioner attended the venue but nobody was present. There is nothing to establish the same. The award categorically states that the petitioner had attended even such hearing. I have no reason to disbelieve this statement merely because in a letter dated 23.11.2007, the petitioner alleged that the arbitrators were not present in the last meeting. No application under section 33 was made in this regard. 9. In the circumstances, the arbitration petition is dismissed.