- (1.) The appellant-contractor is aggrieved of order dated 18.04.2014, whereby the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'the 1996 Act') seeking setting aside the ex parte Award dated 22.04.2009, have been dismissed.
(2.) Mr. S.C. Kalra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Contractor, submits that all the notices sent by the Arbitrator were addressed at the factory premises which was closed in the year 2008, whereas the Arbitrator entered into the reference in December 2009. Somehow the report on the registered envelop came as "refusal" on that premise the appellant was proceeded ex parte. A letter dated 09.02.2009, in this regard, was addressed to Bureau of Indian Standards giving intimation of the closure of the factory but the letter head showed the address of the factory premises. The Objecting Court relied upon the contents of the letter that the aforementioned letter was sent in response to the letter written by the Bureau of Indian Standards at the address of the factory. Even if the appellant is proceeded ex parte, the Arbitrator was enjoined upon obligation as per the provisions of sub-Section 5 of Section 31 of 1996 Act, to send the signed copy of the Award. As per the record of the Arbitrator, vide letter dated 22.04.2009, the signed copy has been only sent to the Chief Engineer, UHBVL, Panchkula. The copy was never endorsed to the appellantContractor, despite the ex parte proceedings had been issued against the appellant-contractor, thus, prays for setting aside the Award as well as the order of the Objecting Court.
(3.) Mr. Sandeep Vermani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Nigam, submits that there is no illegality and perversity in the order under challenge. The letter itself shows that the Director of Bureau of Indian Standards written a letter dated 20.01.2009 to the appellant at his factory premises, in essence, the story of closing of the factory has been coined for the first time in order to take the benefit of having not contested the arbitration proceedings. Even the copy of the Award was also sent and thus, no explanation has come forth in not filing the objections within the period prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act.;