THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Date 16.04.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

O.P.No.562 of 2016

and A.No. 4031 of 2016

S.Vijayamala . . . Petitioner

Versus

1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Represented by Manager – Legal and its

Authorized representative Mr.D.Senthil Kumar

No.123, Angappa Naicken Street,

Chennai – 600 001.

2.R.Anandan

3.C.Srinivasan

4.R.Kandhavel

. . . Respondents

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 34 (2) (a) (iii) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral award dated 27.12.2013 passed

by the Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. ACP (SCUF/EF) No.RK 117 of 2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ralph V.Manohar

For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishanan for R1

No appearance for R2,R3 and R4

Page No:1 /6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

ORDER

The challenge has been made against the Arbitral award dated

27.12.2013 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No. ACP

(SCUF/EF) No.RK 117 of 2013 dated 27.12.2013.

2. The claim has been made as against the respondents for recovery of

money as per the loan agreement executed by the first respondent and the other

respondents stood as guarantors.

3. It is the case of the claimant that the first respondent therein has

committed default. The agreement was terminated and therefore, notice

invoking the arbitration was sent to the parties to the address given by them.

Despite such notice, none of the respondents referred the matter to Sole

Arbitrator as per the loan agreement. The Sole Arbitrator after issuing notice to

the respondents has passed an award based on the documents filed directing the

respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,47,793/- jointly and severally with interest at

the rate of 36% per annum. Challenging the same, the present application has

been filed.

Page No:2 /6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the award itself is

challenged mainly on the ground that the notice has not been served on the

petitioner namely the fourth respondent therein. In otherwise, she has given up

the other grounds raised in this petition. The only ground on which the award

is challenged is non service of notice. Hence, it is his contention that the notice

invoking arbitration has not sent and the notice related to the proceedings of the

arbitration also not served on the claimant. Hence, it is the contention that

award has to be set aside on the ground of non-service of notice.

5. However, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that notice

has been sent to the correct address which was also received by the petitioner.

Similarly, the Arbitrator also sent the notice to the same address which was

also received in the same address. Now, it cannot be said that no notice is

served on the petitioner.

Page No:3 /6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

6. The Records of the Arbitrator has also been called for. On perusal of

the same, the notice was sent by the first respondent, namely the claimant to the

address mentioned in the loan agreement i.e., No.2, 8^th street, Anjeneyapuram,

Kakallur, Thiruvarur District, Tamilnadu. The said address has been given in

the loan agreement. The Arbitrator after hearing the matter, sent the notice

through Registered Post to the same address and the notice has been received

by one Mahalakshmi.

7. It is not the case of the claimant that the notice invoking arbitration not

sent to the same address of the claimant and received by her. Therefore, once

the notice has been sent to the correct address, there is deemed service of notice

as per the Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When, the

address is not disputed by the petitioner and it can