ARBP783-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.783 OF 2010 Best Sellers Apparels Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus M/s.D.M.Fabrics India, A Sole Proprietary Confern of Mr.Babulal Mundhra HUF .. Respondent Mr.Tushar Goradia and Shweta Jain for petitioner Mr.Anil Agarwal for respondent CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th January 2011 P.C.: 1] Mr.Goradia learned Counsel appearing for petitioner would urge that the contention of the petitioner in this petition is similar to that raised in Arbitration Petition No.782 of 2010. However, there is marginal difference inasmuch as here the respondents filed a claim against the petitioner – a private limited company and not against the predecessor in title viz., the partnership firm. However, the award would indicate that the Tribunal called upon the respondents to produce any document which would demonstrate that interest was due and payable. Assuming that such interest was payable, no books of ARBP783-10 2 accounts and other related papers have been produced and still the award has been rendered. 2] Thus, this is also an unreasoned and cryptic award and for the reasons that persuaded this Court to interfere with the award passed by the very same Tribunal and for the same reasons recorded in Arbitration Petition No.782 of 2010 even this petition be allowed. 3] On the other hand, Mr.Agarwal appearing for respondents supported the Award and submitted that the Tribunal had given sufficient notice and it was for the petitioner original respondent to prove its case that interest was never a term of the contract and it was not payable. There is a false dispute raised and that the claim for interest is otherwise tenable. 4] With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides I have perused the Award and I find that the Award relies upon the fact that the petitioner – original respondent did not respond to the ARBP783-10 3 notice issued by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has referred to the letter dated 26th August 2008 but equally the respondent before me had addressed a letter dated 28th August 2008 disputing the authenticity of the copy of the ledger signed by the petitioner as it was not signed by the authorised person of the company. 5] It is in such circumstances, to my mind, the tribunal referred to the statement of account and the ledger and related documents produced by the original claimant – respondent before me, it has referred to the version of the respondent and merely because petitioner failed to appear, that the claim has been awarded. There is absolutely no discussion as to how the claim has been proved by the respondents. There is absolutely no reference to any documents, including ledgers which have been produced, leave alone the entries therein, which would evidence that any component of interest, if at all payable, has been paid. However, as to how the claim of respondents stands proved is not clear from the award, even otherwise. For all these reasons the award being ex parte, unreasoned and cryptic, the ARBP783-10 4 same deserves to be set aside but on conditions which are imposed in identical circumstances. Accordingly, following order:- On the petitioner depositing in this Court a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- within a period of eight weeks from today and producing proof in respect thereof before the Tribunal, the arbitral tribunal shall take up the subject reference for a decision afresh and render a fresh award within a period of three months from the date of the production of such proof. On deposit of the said sum, the petitioner to also intimate the respondents’ Advocate of such deposit. Both sides to then appear before the Tribunal which shall render the award afresh within three months from the date aforesaid. Needless to add that if the amount is not deposited within this period, the award stands confirmed and the petition is then dismissed without any further reference to court. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)