1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.55 OF 2008 Tahir Ahmed Khan ..... Petitioner. V/s M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited ......Respondent. ----- Mr. Jamshed Ansari for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Singh i/b M/s. Sreeji and Lal for the respondent. ------ CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner has challenged an award dated 26/4/2006 passed by the sole arbitrator. It is submitted that the arbitration notice was not served on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to para 4 of the award. 3. Perusal of the said award and the reasons given by the arbitrator clearly disclose that the petitioner herein was not properly served and the packets which were sent to the petitioner, came back with the remarks “NOT KNOWN”, “L EFT” and “INTIMATION-CLOSED”. From the said 2 remarks, it cannot be said that the petitioner was served with the notice dated 28/10/2005. The contention of the petitioner that the award could not have been passed for want of proper service, will have to be accepted. 4. The ex-parte award is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the sole arbitrator. Petitioner waives service of the notice. Petitioner and respondent shall appear before the arbitrator on 8/10/2008. The learned arbitrator may, after hearing both the sides, pass an award in accordance with law. 5. The arbitration petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 3