Back
N. SATHISH KUMAR
Magesh Kumar S. – Appellant
Versus
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited – Respondent
ORDER :
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award of the arbitrator in CTM No.1132 of 2010 dated 03.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and against law.
The award was made by the sole arbitrator in a dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent in a loan agreement dated 26.09.2008.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that non service of notice and non service of notice for invocation of arbitration and also appointment of a subsequent arbitrator. This Court, to arrive at a conclusion on the contention of the parties called for the original records from the arbitrator.
3. On a perusal of the original records, it is found that for invocation of arbitration, no notice, whatsoever, has been served on the petitioner. Further, originally, a sole arbitrator one Mr.Gowthaman was nominated by the respondent by their letter dated 20.04.2010. Immediately, after his nomination, it appears that they have filed the claim statement before the sole arbitrator. Thereafter, notice has been addressed to the respondent by the arbitrator for hearing on 08.09.2010, in which the address is shown as Chidambaram and Pondicherry. Ther
The absence of reasons for an arbitral award, non-compliance with notice requirements, and lack of agreement on disputed rules can lead to the setting aside of the award.
The legal principle established is that a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be based on valid grounds and evidence.
A party can seek arbitration anew after an arbitral award is set aside, and a notice under Section 21 is not necessary unless the arbitration clause is freshly invoked.
Arbitration Award - Service of Notice - Notices were returned with remarks ‘left’ and therefore same did not constitute a due service of notice as required under bye-law 287 of the bye-laws of DSE. N....
Due notice in arbitral proceedings is essential for validity; lack of proper service violates principles of natural justice.
The court protected the petitioners' rights to challenge arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and preserved all questions and contentions for possible Secti....
Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator violates legal principles under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rendering the award non-est.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
