ORDER :

M. Sundar, J.

1. Captioned 'Original Petition' ('OP' for the sake of brevity) is an application under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No. 26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, assailing an 'arbitral award dated 01.08.2017 bearing reference Arbitration Case No. CIFCL/ARB/LX/1173/2017' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity and convenience) made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity) constituted by a sole Arbitrator.

2. Owing to the short statutory perimeter of Section 34 of A and C Act and the limited legal landscape within which a legal drill of testing an arbitral award should perambulate, short facts shorn of elaboration will suffice.

3. Short facts are that a Loan Agreement bearing reference 'Loan No. XOHESLM00001665568 under which a loan of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) was sanctioned on 30.04.2016' (hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity) is the fulcrum of the lis between the parties; that this loan was disbursed; that the borrower submits that a sum of little over Rs. 36.74 lakhs (Rs. 36,74,744/- to be precise) only was disbursed though Rs. 45,00,000/- was sanctioned; that this loan had to be repaid in 156 installments of Rs. 58,489/- each; that the borrower had mortgaged immovable property in favour of the lender company [this Court is informed that lender company is a 'Non-Banking Financial Company' ('NBFC for the sake of brevity)]; that this mortgage is a equitable mortgage; that there is an arbitration clause in the said contract being Clause 26; that this Clause 26 of said contract serves as the arbitration agreement between the parties being 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of A and C Act; that alleging default in repayment, NBFC triggered the arbitration clause and appointed sole Arbitrator who constituted the AT; that AT entered upon reference; that AT issued two notices to the respondents before it, but respondents did not appear; that AT, therefore, made the impugned award on the basis of materials placed before it by the NBFC; that the impugned award, which is an ex-parte award, has now been challenged by Respondents 1, 2 and 4 before AT; that Respondents 1, 2 and 4 before AT are petitioners 1, 2 and 3 respectively in captioned OP; that NBFC, which was the lone claimant before AT is the first respondent in captioned OP; that Respondent No. 3 before AT (this Court is informed that Respondent No. 3 before AT is the mother of Respondent No. 1 before AT) has been arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in captioned OP; that captioned OP was heard out.

4. Mr. P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel on record for three petitioners and Ms. R. Balambigai Gowri, learned counsel on record for contesting first respondent (NBFC), (which was claimant before AT) are before this virtual Court. Respondent No. 3 before AT (mother of first petitioner in captioned OP) has been arrayed as second respondent in captioned OP, she has been duly served in captioned OP, but she has not chosen to come before this Court and this Court is informed that second respondent has not chosen to enter appearance through counsel. To be noted, name and full/complete address of the second respondent in captioned OP, as in the short and long cause titles of captioned OP is shown in the cause list, but there is no representation. Therefore, there is no impediment in having the captioned OP heard out on merits by hearing the two contesting learned counsel before this Court.

5. AT has made the impugned award against the respondents before it (three petitioners and second respondent in captioned OP) awarding a sum of Rs. 47,44,016.09/- [Rupees Forty Seven Lakh(s) Forty Four Thousand Sixteen And Paise Nine only] with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 28.03.2017 till the date of realization and more importantly, AT has made the impugned award in favour of the claimant N