Judicial interference in arbitration proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 is limited to exceptional circumstances, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards and the need to minimize court involvement.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred challenging the entire proceeding in Execution Case No.24 of 2019 pending in the Court of the Learned District Judge, Nabarangpur which arises out of Arbitration award dated 31.8.2013 passed by Learned Sole Arbitrator, Sri S.B. Panse.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The present Opposite Party is in the business of manufacturing and supply of animal feeds. The present Petitioner had a processing unit and entered into a Storage Agreement dated 1.9.2008 with the Opposite Party for processing of the Opposite Party’s products.

3. As per the terms of the Agreement, the Opposite Party was to supply raw materials and packing material to the present Petitioner. Thereafter, the Petitioner was under the obligation to exclusively process the products of the Opposite Party and maintain inventory.

4. Allegedly, after April, 2009 disputes arose between the Parties due to stoppage of production and consequently, the present Opposite Party terminated the Agreement on 2.5.2009. This is where the dispute arose.

5. The matter was referred to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The present Opposite Party claimed a total of Rs.12,91,153.66/- with 18% interest p.a.. The arbitration process culminated in Arbitration award dated 31.8.2013 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Due to non-representation of the present Petitioner, the arbitration was set ex-parte and Ld. Sole Arbitrator was pleased to allow the claims of the present Opposite Party in its entirety along with Arbitrator fees of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards incidental expenses.

6. The present Petitioner alleges that though the award was passed in 2013, the same was never communicated to her and the petitioner had no knowledge of the same till notice in the Execution Proceeding was issued and delivered to her. Aggrieved, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

7. Now that the facts leading up to the instant Petition has been laid down, this Court shall endeavour to summarise the contentions of the Parties and the broad grounds that have been raised.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the said award was passed without her knowledge or participation, as she was never properly served with notice of the arbitral proceedings and was not supplied a copy of the final award. She claims that she only came to know about the existence of the award in September 2024 upon receiving notice in the execution case. The petitioner further asserts that the execution proceedings are therefore illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, as they are based on an award that was never communicated to her, depriving her of the opportunity to challenge it before the competent court within the statutory time period under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

9. The petitioner further argues that the execution petition filed in 2019 suffers from gross delay, being instituted nearly six years after the award without any petition for condonation of delay. He further contends that such delayed initiation of arbitration proceedings violates the principles of limitation and fairness. Moreover, while the award amount determined by