Delhi High Court
Ramesh Chand vs Gambit Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. ... on 23 May, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 321/2010 & CM 15372-73/2010
% May 23, 2011
RAMESH CHAND ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Mobin Akhtar, Adv.
VERSUS
GAMBIT LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Neha Gupta, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short „the Act‟) is to the impugned
order dated 16.4.2010, which has dismissed the objections of the
appellant/objector.
2. The only ground of challenge to the Award was that the appellant was
not served in the arbitration proceedings. This aspect has been dealt with by
the trial court in para 7 of the impugned order, which reads as under:-
"7. Ld. counsel for the objector has vehemently
submitted that the notice of appointment of receiver was not
FAO 321/2010 Page 1 of 4
issued to him. On this score arbitration proceedings perused
carefully. The demand notice dated 24.3.06 attached with
the proceedings and the same has been exhibited as
CW1/20. The same was sent through the respondent
through courier. The receipt of the courier were brought on
record as Ex.CW1/21 to 27. The original undelivered
envelope brought on record as Ex.CW1/34 with findings „No
response". The notice of appointment of Arbitrator was also
issued to the objector on his residential address as well as
his official address. The notice issued on the residential
address was received back with the report unclaimed and
the notice issued at the official address was duly served
which reveals from the AD card attached with the arbitration
proceedings. Then another notice was issued by the Ld.
Arbitrator Ms. Rashmi to the effect that she has been
appointed as Arbitrator in the proceedings and directed the
objector to appear on 10.7.06 at 5 pm. This notice was
issued through registered AD which was duly served as
reveals from the AD card received back. But the respondent
again has not appeared in court. The copy of the arbitration
award was also sent to the objector through registered post
at his official address which were also served which reveals
from the AD card attached with the arbitration proceedings.
The entire proceedings reveals that respondent was issued
the notice qua the appointment of Arbitrator, notice for
joining arbitration proceedings but the objector has not
joined the arbitration proceedings despite service. Even the
copy of the award was duly sent and was duly received
which reveals from the AD card attached with the file. In
these circumstances the plea taken by the objector that he
was having no notice of the arbitration proceedings is found
to be baseless and after thought." (underlining added)
3. In my opinion, the aforesaid findings clearly show that at the correct
addresses of the appellant all the notices were sent. First notice was the
notice of demand. Thereafter, the notice which was sent, was the notice of
appointment of the arbitrator. Thereafter, notice was sent by the Arbitrator
herself for appearance and finally notice with respect to the passing of the
FAO 321/2010 Page 2 of 4
Award was also given.
4. I, therefore, do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned
judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant very passionately sought to
argue that the AD cards were fabricated. In order to appreciate his
contention I went through the AD cards. Though, the AD cards do not contain
any stamp of postal authority but the AD cards are accompanied by
appropriate postal receipts of the postal department of having issued these
notices. In the light of such facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order and the Award which shows service at four different stages
upon the appellant, more so, when the address of the appellant has rightly
been given in the notice.
5. At this stage, I may refer to Section 3 of the Act which states that in
fact, notices are sufficiently served, if they are sent at the last known
address to the party in arbitration. As I have already stated above, the
notices were correctly addressed. Finally, learned counsel for the appellant
sought to argue that it is possible that even after making the postal receipts,
the actual envelopes could have been taken by the respondent no. 1
company. I find his argument totally farfetched, more so, because there is
no averment in the objection petition that the postal receipts are fabricated
because the registered envelopes in fact were taken back by respondent no1
company. This argument is an argument of desperation and needs to be
rejected as such. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant sought to argue
FAO 321/2010 Page 3 of 4
that he has made most of the payment to the respondent no.1. If that be so,
and the appellant is able to establish payments, which are made to the
respondent no.1 Finance Company then, obviously, the Finance Company
would give necessary credits with respect to the amounts which are alleged
to be paid to the respondent no1 company.
6. There is therefore no merit in the appeal which is accordingly
dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Trial court record be
set back.
May 23, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
