JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and (v) and (b)(2)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Arbitrator, which had arisen out of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and direct the respondent to pay the costs of the petition.)

1. This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Arbitrator.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had entered into an Agreement dated 12.08.2012 with the respondent and availed financial assistance from the respondent to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the production of Bilingual feature film “JK ENUM NANBANIN VAZHKAI” and the respondent had released the financial assistance in seven installments. The petitioner has admitted the fact about the disbursement of the said loan and on various dates, the petitioner had repaid Rs.1,15,00,000/- out of the total due of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. The petitioner had not released the film in any theatre or in the electronic media including satellite, etc. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent to allow them to release the said film in DVD format. However, the respondent obtained an order of interim injunction dated 12.01.2015 in O.A.No.43 of 2015, restraining the petitioner from releasing the film in any format without settling the due amounts to the respondent. At this juncture, without realising the gravity of the situation, one of the distributors at Dharmapuri, had realeased the film in DVD format on 07.03.2015. Hence the petitioner without any other option, released the film in DVD format in other districts also.

3. Further, it was submitted by the petitioner that due to the above act of the petitioner, the respondent had filed contempt petition No.581 of 2015 in O.A.No.43 of 2015 and also initiated the arbitration proceedings against the petitioner. The Arbitrator was appointed by the respondent without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner and obtained the ex-parte award on 29.04.2015. However, the petitioner had not received the copy of the award. During the hearing of aforesaid contempt petition, the respondent informed that since the petitioner had not paid the arbitration fee, the award was not sent by the arbitrator. Thereafter, by virtue of an application under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as “the Act”), the petitioner approached this Court and obtained an order directing the respondent to send a copy of the award dated 29.04.2015 to the petitioner''s counsel. The petitioner got the copy of the award only on 02.11.2020. Aggrieved over the said award, the petitioner came before this Court, seeking to set aside the award dated 29.04.2015. The Learned Arbitrator without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to contest and counter the matter in the arbitration, he passed an ex-parte award dated 29.04.2015 against the petitioner, which is liable to be set aside.

4. The main grounds of challenge made by the petitioner are that the respondent appointed the learned Arbitrator unilaterally and the ex parte award also came to be passed on 29.04.2015 without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, the said award is in conflict with the most basic notion of morality or justice. The learned Arbitrator, in spite of appearance of his counsel and though the respondent has not served any claim statement to the petitioner to counter it, he passed an ex-parte award without giving sufficient opportunity to contest the matter. Also the petitioner never received any notice from the respondent with regard to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, which is unlawful. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the award dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the pet