While Section 34 applications must be filed in court, in exceptional cases of alleged non-service of notice and award, the Arbitral Tribunal may be directed to treat such an application as one to set aside an ex parte order (similar to Order IX Rule 13 CPC) to verify service.

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toMemorandum of Civil Revision Petition being aggrieved by the attachment order passed in EPNo. 57 of 2020 in ARC.No. 58 of 2019 dt. 13- 10-2020 and the consequential notice under Order 21 Rule 54 (1A) on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty,

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay all further proceedings in E.P.No. 57 of 2020 in ARC.No.58 of 2019 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty pending disposal of the above C.R.P. and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim stay order granted in I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in C.R.P. No. 1229 of 2020 dated.13.11.2020, till disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of justice

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the initiation of execution proceedings in E.P.No.57 of 2020 in A.R.C.No.58 of 2019 and the consequential notice issued under Order XXI Rule 54(1A) CPC on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoti.

2. The petitioners had obtained a loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from the 1st respondent and were required to repay the same together with interest at Rs.45,625/- per month in 60 equated monthly installments. Upon dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioners towards repayment of the EMIs, the 1st respondent invoked the arbitration clause in terms of the loan agreement dated 30.03.2017. Consequently, the sole Arbitrator passed an award directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.24,21,047/- together with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum, besides directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to bear half of the costs involved.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were unaware of the arbitration proceedings and had never received any notice thereof. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside the ex parte arbitral award, on the ground that they had no knowledge of the proceedings before the learned Arbitrator. The learned counsel further submits that the said application is still pending consideration, and that the learned Arbitrator is not inclined to take up the said interlocutory application on the ground that the award has already been passed and no further orders can be passed thereafter.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited Vs. Tuff Drilling Private Limited , (2018) 11 SCC 470 the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an issue where the claimant before the Arbitral tribunal did not submit the claim petition resulting in termination of the arbitral proceedings. The application filed by the claimant subsequently under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not considered by the Tribunal as the Arbitrator had terminated the arbitration proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the arbitral tribunal committed an error in holding that it has no jurisdiction to recall an order terminating the proceedings under Secti