( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1 OF 2009 Motilal Oswal Commodities Brokers Pvt.Ltd... Petitioner V/s Ritesh Goyal & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Rahul Karnik for the Petitioner. Representative of Respondent No.2 present. CORAM : CORAM : CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. R.Y.GANOO, J. R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2009. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2009. DATE : 13TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mr.Rahul Karnik appears for the Petitioner. None appears for Respondent No.1. Affidavit of service is filed. Representative of Respondent No.2 is present. Award dated 12.5.2008 is challenged u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the "said Act". 2. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.Karnik for the Petitioner. The award clearly mentions that on the first date of hearing viz.24.4.2008 nobody appeared. Even when the next date was fixed being 8.5.2008 nobody appeard and that is why the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that nobody is interested in attending the Arbitration proceedings and that is how he has dismissed the claim by passing the impugned Award. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that on 8th May, 2008 the staff member of the Petitioner who was on the way of arbitration venue met with an accidental ( 2 ) injury and that is how he could not attend the matter and that is how the absence is sought to be mentioned. Perused the text of the application u/s.34 of the said Act. Though in the ground 3(h) it is mentioned that the representative of the Petitioner met with an personal injury etc., the name of the person who was deputed to appear on behalf aof the Petitioner is not set out. In any case it was open to the Petitioner to represent to the Arbitrator on the next date atleast and state that his representative met with an accidental injury and hence could not remain present. What was the incident of injury that caused to the representative is also not set out in ground 3(h). It is required to be mentioned that the view taken by the learned Arbitrator cannot be considered as wrong, inasmuch as it was the duty of the Petitioner to see that the Arbitration Proceedings are attended to deligently. The learned Arbitrator has given reasons as to how he came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is not interested in attending the matter. The absence of representative of the Petitioner is on first date explained by saying that the letter went to the wrong department and that is how nobody remained present. This is also one more explanation given by the Petitioner to show that they were not interested in attending the proceedings. 3. In my view the view taken by the learned Arbitrator is proper and no interference is required. Arguments ( 3 ) advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the case be remanded back, cannot be accepted. Hence the Arbitration Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (R.Y.GANOO, J.)