arbp567-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.567 OF 2010 Ashok Tukaram Shinde .. Petitioner Versus L & T Finance Ltd & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.B.Tajane for the petitioner. Mrs.S.I.Joshi i/by S.I.Joshi & Co for respondent No.1. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. . Heard. The petitioner is the guarantor. Against the petitioner and the respondent No.2, an award has been made directing both to pay to the 1st respondent the sum of Rs.2,09,159/-. 2 That claim arose out of a facility granted to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent and the dues thereunder being secured by the guarantee given by the petitioner. The 1st arbp567-10.doc 2 respondent is a finance company and the award refers to the loan of Rs.4,35,000/- sanctioned and evidenced by several documents and primarily by loan-cum-hypothecation agreement dated 17th June 2006. The equipment purchased has been hypothecated with the 1st respondent-claimant. There was a default in making payment by the principal borrower. Therefore, demand was raised on both and finding that the demand notice dated 19th August 2008 having been duly served and received by both but there was no response that the matter was referred to the sole arbitration in terms of the agreement. It is clear that both remained absent before the sole arbitrator. In para 16 he has recorded as to how notices which were sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due were delivered and there is an acknowledgment evidencing the same. Further, in para 17 notices of meetings were also given from time to time, are referred. 3 In such circumstances, I am unable to accept the first contention of Mr.Tajane that the award is passed ex-parte and, therefore, violates the principles of natural justice. arbp567-10.doc 3 4 As far as the second contention is concerned, that is on merits in-as-much as it is urged that the 1st respondent has not proved the claim and the award does not indicate anything with regard to the same. 5 I am unable to accept this contention either and for obvious reasons. The award is a reasoned award and makes detailed reference to the claim and documents produced. In para 19 the issues/points have been framed and in para 20 there is a reference to the documents serially. It is in these circumstances and finding that neither the documentary evidence has been challenged nor have the petitioner and the 2nd respondent disputed their liability that the award is made. 6 No amount of hardship caused allegedly by the petitioner being illiterate or unable to appreciate the legal consequences can be a ground by itself and without anything more to set aside the arbitral award. arbp567-10.doc 4 7 In the circumstances, finding that there is no substance in any of the contentions and grounds raised in the petition, challenge to the award fails. The petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)