JUDGMENT

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal is against judgment and order dated 17.05.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the application being OMP (Comm.) No.112/2016 filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to ‘1996 Act’) for setting aside an arbitral award dated 17th September, 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr.Lalit Kumar, in Arbitration Case No.RFL/Mortgage/LRN/L-4/748 between the appellants and the respondent.

2. Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘RFL’), a non banking financial company, executed a loan facility agreement with the appellants on 29th November, 2011, pursuant to which RFL disbursed a loan of Rs.2,10,00,000/- to the appellant No.1 Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the appellant company on the terms and conditions contained in the said loan facility agreement.

3. As security for the money lent and advanced by RFL to the appellant company, the appellants mortgaged their property being No.39/4, Khatha No.14826 (SI No.353), Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka-560062 in favour of RFL by depositing the original title deeds thereof with RFL.

4. On or about 15th March, 2014, RFL recalled the loan facility and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,33,60,183.63p along with interest at 36% per annum. The loan advanced by RFL to the appellant company was repayable to RFL in equated monthly instalments. The appellant company apparently defaulted in payment of instalments in terms of the said loan facility agreement.

5. Disputes and differences arose between RFL and the appellants by reason of alleged breaches of the said loan facility agreement allegedly committed by the appellants. It is not in dispute that the appellant company defaulted in payment of instalments as agreed under the aforesaid loan facility agreement.

6. RFL invoked the arbitration clause in the said loan facility agreement, appointed Mr.Lalit Kumar as sole Arbitrator, and submitted its Statement of Claim before the learned sole Arbitrator inter alia claiming a sum of Rs.1,33,60,183.63p from the appellants along with interest.

7. The claim of RFL was allowed by an ex-parte award made and published by the learned sole Arbitrator on 17th September, 2014, which was impugned before the learned Single Bench, by the appellants by filing the aforesaid application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act.

8. The impugned award of the learned Arbitrator was challenged mainly on three grounds. The first ground of challenge was that the award impugned was allegedly in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants contended that the award was made ex-parte.

Notice was not served on the appellants.

9. It however, appears that the learned Single Bench took pains to carefully look into the records of the arbitral proceedings and recorded a finding that notice had duly been served. The learned Single Bench found:-

“11. The Arbitral record was added. The same was examined by the Court. Before passing the Award, it appears from the postal receipt as well as A.D. Cards that the Arbitral Tribunal had sent the notices of intention to proceed ex parte, dated 17th July, 2014 which were duly despatched on 23rd July, 2014 and the same were received by the petitioners on 2nd August, 2014. Prior to that, the notices for arbitration proceedings were sent on 3rd July, 2014. The postal receipts are available on record. All A.D. Cards and postal receipts were placed on record of arbitration proceedings.”

10. In view of the factual finding of the learned Single Bench that notices had duly been served, we hold that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

11. Citing the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Electrical Manufacturing Company Ltd. reported in (2008) 3 Arbitration Law 239 (Del.), the appellants argued that the learned Arbitrator had decided to proceed with hot