1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 301 OF 2009 Mr. Manish Thakkar Proprietor of M/s. Mobel India, ...Petitioner. Vs. The Punjab & Maharashtra Co-op. Bank Ltd., & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. A.G. Damle for the Petitioner. Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete for Respondent No.1. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 23rd JULY, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), basically on the ground that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to file his written statement on record and that resulted into the award on the basis of alleged admission made by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing. 2 Admittedly, the Arbitrator had directed the Petitioner to deposit 25% of the claim amount as a condition precedent. This is in my view, nowhere contemplates under the Act unless agreed and consented accordingly. Having once put up that condition and not taken note of the application to set aside the said order/ condition while passing the impugned award, is also unjust and unfair. Once refused to take the written statement on 2 record, the oral submission by the Petitioner, if any, and permitting to participate in the arbitration proceeding, is of no use. The cost for delay in filing of written statement cannot be equated with the condition of 25% deposit of the claim amount. 3 The submission referring to Section 25 of the Act in no way sufficient to overlook the basic principle of natural justice and fair play which in the present case in my view, apparently breached. I am not deciding the merit of the matter, however, considering the fact that no full opportunity was given to the Petitioner to represent his case by not permitting him to file written statement/ defence in writing, is a sufficient reason to quash and set aside the arbitral award. 4 The submission, that there was a clear admission given when the Petitioner participated in the Petition and there was no such denial in the present Petition, has also no force. Once the denial in defence and the denial in the written statement if not taken care of, therefore, merely because he participated and made the alleged admission, in no way should be the foundation to pass such award. Such oral admission even if any, are always explainable and rebutable, if opportunity is given. Hence, the impugned order dated 27th September, 2008 is quashed and set aside. 5 Resultantly, the Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)