1. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner (original applicant), interalia, with a prayer to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 17.12.2012, passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, in Execution Application No.291/2012, whereby the said application has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner entered into a Contract dated 17.08.2010, with the respondent, for purchase of fully pressed bales of Gujarat Shanker6 Cotton of 201011 Crop at Rs.32,000/- per candy. The contract stipulates an Arbitration clause whereby the byelaws and rules of the Cotton Association of India, Mumbai (“CAI Rules”, for short), would be applicable while resolving any dispute through arbitration. According to the petitioner, the parties to the contract had agreed to resolve all disputes through arbitration, in accordance with the CAI Rules, which interalia stipulate that a Secretary is appointed by the said Association for the purpose of carrying out the duties under the Rules. A dispute was raised in respect of the contract dated 17.08.2010 and Mr.Pankaj S. Kotak was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator under Rule20 of the CAI Rules, for the claim lodged by the petitioner. The Arbitrator passed an award on 1011.04.2012, directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.60,96,677/with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award, till the payment or realization along with the costs of the arbitration amounting to Rs.26,636/, to the petitioner. The award has been signed by the Arbitrator and countersigned by the Secretary of the CAI. The respondent did not participate in the arbitration proceedings despite several notices by the Arbitrator. After the award was passed and signed by the Arbitrator, it was sent by R.P.A.D. by the Secretary, CAI vide a communication dated 11.04.2012, to the respondent. Upon inquiring from the CAI regarding the service of the award, the petitioner was intimated by letter dated 01.09.2012, that the award has been sent by R.P.A.D. and the respondent has received it, as per the acknowledgment card. It is the case of the petitioner that despite receipt of the award, the respondent has failed to make the payment as per the award to the petitioner. No appeal was filed by the respondent, as provided under Rule69 of the CAI Rules. Under the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to institute execution proceedings before the Trial Court, interalia, praying for the enforcement of the award and seeking the issuance of a warrant of attachment, under Section36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act”, for short), read with Order21 Rule43 and 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the CPC”, for short). The respondent did not file a reply to the execution application, but filed a separate application at Exhibit12, praying for the dismissal of the execution application on the ground that the award was not communicated to the respondent by the Arbitrator, therefore, the time period for challenging it having not expired, the award cannot be enforced under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner seeking enforcement of the award, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the present petition.

3. On 16.01.2013, this Court issued Notice for final disposal. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being finally decided.

4. Hence, issue Rule. Mr.Mousam R. Yagnik, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

5. Mr.Mihir H. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared for the petitioner with Mr.Vimal M. Patel, learned advocate. His submissions are briefly summarized as follows:-

(a) There is no requirement under the law that an arbitral award must