THE HON’BLE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2897 of 2001 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2985 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice G.V. Seethapathy) Since the parties and the issue involved in both the cases are one and the same, they can be disposed of by a common order. The parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in C.M.A.No.2987 of 2001. C.M.A.No.2897 of 2001 is directed against dismissal of O.P.No.22 of 1996 filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for brevity), seeking to set aside award dated 19.02.1996 and C.R.P.No.2985 of 2001 is against allowing O.P.No.11 of 1996 filed by the first respondent - arbitrator under Sections 14(2) and 17 of the Act to make the award as rule of the Court. Both the O.Ps. were disposed of by the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by common order dated 12.04.2001. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and none appears for the respondents. The dispute between the appellant and the second respondent was referred to the first respondent – arbitrator by each one's consent, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides, the arbitrator passed award dated 19.02.1996 for a sum of Rs.5,63,555/- in favour of the second respondent. The appellant mainly contends that he has not singed any arbitration agreement along with the second respondent agreeing to resolve the dispute between them by way of arbitration by the first respondent - arbitrator, that the first respondent himself approached him for settling the dispute and obtained his signatures on blank paper in a note book and subsequently, no notice of arbitration proceedings was served on him and he came to know about passing of the award only after receiving notice in O.P.No.11 of 1996 filed by the first respondent – arbitrator. After that he filed O.P.No.22 of 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award. A perusal of the arbitral award shows that both the parties i.e., the appellant and the second respondent on 05.12.1995 jointly constituted the first respondent as arbitrator by signing an agreement stating “the dispute between Sri S.N. Sankar Rao, as engineer, and Sri A. Sudhakar, as builder, is referred to Sri B.V. Krishna Rao for arbitration, whose decision is final and binding on both of them”. The above said agreement is signed by both the appellant and the second respondent in token of acceptance for entrustment of their dispute to the first respondent for resolution by way of arbitration. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the signature of the appellant was obtained on blank paper by the first respondent – arbitrator is difficult to accept in view of the admitted fact that the appellant has also appended the signature along with the second respondent in the arbitration agreement. There is absolutely no reason as to why the first respondent – arbitrator should resort to any misconduct or misrepresentation or indulge in any fraudulent activity as against the appellant by obtaining his signatures on the blank papers in a note book, as alleged. Paragraph 4 of the arbitral award shows that both the parties agreed before the arbitrator that in preference to submitting their written statements in support of their respective points of view, they desired oral hearings. A perusal of the arbitral award shows that both the appellant and also the second respondent gave their respective depositions before the first respondent – arbitrator and both of them were also cross examined. The arbitration award, therefore, establishes that an opportunity of oral hearing was, in fact, given to the appellant and he participated in the arbitral proceedings, adduced evidence on his behalf, besides cross examining the second respondent. The contention of the appellant that no notice of the arbitral proceedings was given to him nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him by the first respondent – arbitrator is, therefore, totally untenable. It is obvious that being faced with the award granted in favour of the second respondent for a sum of Rs.5,64,555/- after full fledged enquiry by the arbitrator in which sufficient opportunity was given to both sides to place necessary evidence and also material in support of their respective contentions, the appellant has now come forward with the present plea attributing misconduct to the first respondent – arbitrator only with a view to avoid liability under the arbitral award. There is absolutely no valid or tenable ground to set aside the award passed by the first respondent – arbitrator which was passed duly following the principles of natural justice. The impugned order of the lower Court allowing O.P.No.11 of 1996 filed by the first respondent – arbitrator for making the arbitral award as rule of Court and dismissing O.P.No.22 of 1996 filed by the appellant to set aside the arbitral award, does not warrant interference by this Court. In the result, both the C.M.A. and the C.R.P. are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (T. MEENA KUMARI, J) 04th August, 2009 ______________________ (G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J) GHN