M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment rendered in O.P.No.428 of 2009, dated 23.6.2010, by which the learned single Judge by exercising the power under Section 34(2)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity "the Act") was pleased to set aside the award passed.

2. It is seen that there was a Hire Purchase Agreement said to have been entered into between the third respondent, who has been given up in this appeal and the appellant. According to the appellant, respondent No.1 stood as a guarantor. The Hire Purchase Agreement was said to have been cancelled by the appellant due to the noncompliance of the conditions regarding payment and thereafter, a notice under Section 21 of the Act was said to have been issued and served on the respondents 1 and 3. After the alleged compliance, the appellant initiated proceedings by appointing Arbitrator.

3. The learned Arbitrator sent notices to respondents 1 and 3. The third respondent after receipt of notice did not turn up. Insofar as the first respondent is concerned, notices got returned with endorsements in Gujarati language and also as "unserved". Thereafter, a paper publi