Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1625 - HC - Indian LawsValidity of Arbitral Award - loss allegedly incurred in the risk sale - petitioner's bid for purchase of 250 MT of the goods @ ₹ 42,810/- per MT was accepted - respondent contended that the petitioner had failed to lift the goods, as a result of which it was compelled to sell the material to third parties at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The principal legal ground urged by petitioner, was that the proceedings of the arbitration themselves were vitiated by an improper invocation of the arbitration. HELD THAT:- The petitioner's contention is that it had not received any notice of commencement of arbitration in terms of Section 21 of the Act, and Rule 15 of the ICA Rules. This contention must be examined in the context of the correspondence between the parties - In the present case, however, although the petitioner did not formally participate in the arbitral proceedings, its communications to the ICA did highlight the objection under Section 21. The petitioner's challenge on this ground must be examined on its merits in this petition, and the respondent's preliminary objection is rejected. The petitioner's contention on the basis of Section 21 of the Act is wholly unmerited. The provision requires a party to send a request to the counter-party for the dispute to be referred to arbitration. The respondent's communication dated 14.12.2012 meets that requirement - The petitioner's reliance on Rule 15 of the ICA Rules also does not take its case much further. Rule 15(i) requires a notice of request for arbitration to be sent to the ICA and to the other party. The respondent herein had already given the notice of request for arbitration to the petitioner as aforesaid. Its communication dated 16.04.2013 to the Registrar of the ICA included all the documents contemplated by Rule 15(ii). The Rules, on a plain reading, require compliance of Rule 15(ii) in the communication addressed to the Registrar. Rule 15(i) requires that the proposed respondent in the arbitration also be given notice of the request for arbitration, but does not necessitate that the same communication be addressed both to the Registrar and the respondent. It is, in fact, specifically contemplated by Rule 18 that the statement of claim and attached documents would be sent subsequently by the Registrar to the respondent. It has been held in several judgments of the Supreme Court, including Associate Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority, [2014 (11) TMI 1114 - SUPREME COURT], that re-appreciation of evidence is not open to the Court under Section 34. It is evident from the above extract of the award itself that this is not a case where the award was entirely unsupported by evidence, or where the arbitrator failed to consider any material evidence. The petitioner chose not to participate in the arbitration proceedings or to bring its own evidence and arguments before the arbitrator. The learned arbitrator therefore rightly proceeded on the evidence led by the respondent. The petitioner has failed to make out any grounds for interference with the impugned award under Section 34 of the Act - The petition is dismissed with costs assessed at ₹ 50,000/-.
|