Varsani Construction Company & Anr v. Religare Finvest Limited

VALMIKIJ. MEHTA, J

- $~2kid3 . ^ ;• , * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI • + •. ••FAd''282/2017 ^ VARSANI CONSTRUCTIONCOMPANYAND ANR ..... AppelMtS; ' • ; , Through: IVlt. Jaspal Singh, Mr. NamranNasir'and. . Mr. Oniar Hoda, Advocates. , ' - . , , : , ' • ' versus - \ RELIGAREFIl^VESfLIMITED ' . : . ' Through + FAO 283/2017 . ; •....,. Respondent VARSANICONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY& ANR , .. .....Appellants, • Through: Mr. Jaspd Singh, Mr. Naniran Nasir and Mr. Omar Hoda, Advocates. : , versus .RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED .: , Through Respondent :'CORAM:- , , HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMm J. M^ , '•<, O R D .E R .. % ' , 0107.2017 ; : 1. , These: matters are identical with three matters being FAO Nos.;' 259/2017, 260/2017 and"261/2017 which were dismissed ]by. a judgment \ dated 3G.5.20i7. The judgmentdated 30.5.2017in aforestatedFAOs reads ' > asunder:-, , ^ ^ ^ . "1. These appeals, under Section 37, of the.- Arbitration arid V Conciliation A^ct, 1996 are filed i hy the appellants against . impugnedjudgmentofthe court below dated 26.12.2016 which has . • FAO 282/2017& conn. Page 1 of5. dismissed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and . I ConciliationActfiledby theappellants/objectors. 2. Arbitration proceedings were, initiated; by respondent/lender for recovery of a sum of Rs.57,53,064.65 along " ' • with interest. In these arbitration proceedings, it has been found as a matter of fact on record, by the. court below that .,appellants/petitioners were duly served but the appellants/petitioners , failed to appear in the arbitration proceedings. The court below has •V arrived at a 'finding .that notices which were sent to appellants/petitioners by the registered post were at the admitted addresses of the appellants/petitioners, and therefore, there is deemed ' • service of the arbitration proceedings. The court below has also . referred to the. fact that even the earlier, recall-cum-demand notice , dated 30.8,2013 sent to the appellants/petitioners,the' same was received back with a note of'refusal'. The court below also notes that addresses of the appellaiits/petitidners mentioned in 'the postal envelopes, whether the addresses were those as mentioned in the . , , demand notice or notices issued in the arbitration proceedings . • - includingthe noticeto proceed ex-parte, are the same addressesof the ' •appellants/petitioners as mentioned in their petition under Section 34 ' of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.. More importmtly, the court . . below has come to a finding of fact that the Award dated 20.12.2013 . was sent to the appellants/petitioners by way of registered post and the ' appellants/petitionerswereduly servedoftheAwardon28.12.2013as' _ there were,.found two AD cards bearing the stamp of the appellant • no.1/petitioher no.1 and the signatures of two other persons on the AD cards, lying in the arbitral record.; The court below has held that the appellants/petitioners have not denied the official stamp of the appellantno.l/petition^rno.1 or the signatureson the Ad cards. The . , aforesaid aspects have been dealt with exhaustively by the court . . below in paras 6 to 8 of the impugned judgment and which paras read ^ , , asunder:- ' ; ' . , - . "6. The counsel for the petitioners has 'argued that , . petitioners were not served with the notice, of commencement of arbitration,as weir as notice'of arbitrationproceedingsby the Ld. Arbitrator. But the perusal of arbitral record has.revealed that the. notices were sent to the petitioners by way of post at the following , ' • . ^ ' stages:- •. . • , . . ' . (i) When loan recall-cum-demand notice dated 30.08.2013-was sent by the Claimant on 31.08.2013;, ' • FAO282/2017& conn. , , Page2of5 (ii) When notice da^ed'24.09.'2013of arbitrationproceedingswas sent.. by the Sole Arbitrator on 28.09.2013: (iii) sWhen notice dated 06.11.2013of iiitentionof proceed ex parte was sent by the Sole Arbitrator on 07.11.2013: and when the copy of Award dated 20.12.2013 was sent-to the petitioners by the