CRP/2526/2026 of N.K.Jinnah Vs Kumarichelvan Bosco on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The revision petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent, sole Arbitrator to furnish the Arbitration award along with copies of the case papers in Arbitration Case No.ARB/1K/M/05/2014 dated 18.04.2015.

2. I have heard Mr.S.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.N.S.Rachel Catherine, learned counsel for the first respondent/sole Arbitrator and Ms.Dipthi Munoth, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would focus his arguments on the primordial ground that no notice was served on the revision petitioner either before or during the conduct of the arbitration proceedings and only after effecting paper publication, the petitioner was set exparte. He would further state that even a copy of the award has not been furnished to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to challenge the award by filing an appropriate Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act'). He would also state that despite notice sent, the copy of the award has not been furnished to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be deprived of a fair opportunity to file a statutory appeal under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

4. It is also the contention of Mr.Sivaraman, that the Arbitrator appointed in the present case, viz., the first respondent has been repeatedly appointed as an Arbitrator in several other matters concerning the second respondent/claimant and therefore, it is a clear case of fraud and collusion between the respondents in order to impose liability on the petitioner, without following the due process of law.

5. Mr.Sivaraman, would also contend that the claimant/second respondent was himself aware of the fact that the petitioner was not residing at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -600 010 and in fact, a notice dated 10.05.2014 was also sent to an alternate address viz., No.25, 2nd Street, Jamalia, Perambur High Road, Perambur – Chennai -600 012. It is therefore the contention of Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel that the claimant ought to have issued notices to the said alternate address during the course of the arbitration proceedings. He would further state that the decree holder/claimant is a total stranger to the petitioner and having come to know that the original documents of title to properties belonging to the petitioner are in the custody of the second respondent, the petitioner has also taken steps before the Criminal Court against the petitioner. Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that in all fairness, the first respondent/sole arbitrator ought to have furnished the copy of the arbitration award to enable the petitioner to challenge the award by filing a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant Ms.Dipthi Munoth, firstly contended that in the arbitration agreement, the petitioner has given his registered address only as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. In fact, she would also point out to the fact that the very same address has been given by the petitioner even in the revision proceedings. She would therefore state that there is no error or infirmity, or much less illegality committed by the Arbitrator in sending notices to the said registered address at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10.

7. As regards the letter dated 10.05.2014, the learned counsel for the second respondent states that though the letter contained an alternate address at Perambur, the letter was in fact served only at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, for which, the acknowledgement card has also produced in the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent. However, the genuineness of the said acknowledgement card is seriously disputed by the learned Counsel Mr.Sivaraman, contending that the signature found in the said acknowledgement card is not the signature of the revision petitioner.

8. Ms.Dipthi Munoth, learned counsel would further state that the original documents of title are still with the second respondent and if really, it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent is a total stranger to the petitioner, then there is no explanation as to how the original documents of title came to the hands of the second respondent. In fact, in this regard, she relied on the undertaking letter executed by the petitioner on 15.10.2013 and she would invite my attention to the Demand Draft dated 12.01.2012, executed by the petitioner where also his address is mentioned only as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. Under the said pro note, the petitioner has undertaken to pay on demand, a sum of Rs.40 lakhs, together with interest at 24% per annum to the second respondent herein. Subsequently, on 15.10.2013, the petitioner has addressed a letter which also carries the very same address No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 and in and by the said letter the petitioner has sought for further time till 12.01.2014, to settle the entire amount due under the loan agreement. Even before the Arbitrator notices have been sent to the very same address, viz., No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 and since the petitioner was unserved, the Arbitrator proceeded to order substituted service by way of publication and thereafter, passed an exparte award in favour of the second respondent on 18.04.2015.

9. Ms.Dipthi Munoth, learned counsel has also relied on the subsequent exchange of correspondence and also a writ petition filed by the petitioner himself in 2015 and also rely on the registered (Additional) Simple Mortgage Deed executed by the petitioner on 03.10.2016 in favour of the Simpson and Group Companies employees Cooperative Society Limited, where also the address of the petitioner is only No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. She would also rely on the letter dated 20.05.2015, executed by the petitioner in and by which, the original sale deeds were handed over as security, to the second respondent and to be retained, till such time, the amounts due under the loan agreement were repaid by the petitioner.

10. She has also relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Rajinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Escorts Security Limited, reported in … INSC…

(ii) Osiyer Roy Vs. Satnarayan Roy, in 2004 (3) PLJR 302,

(iii) Madan and Co. Vs. Wazir Javir Chand, reported in 1998 INSC 357, and

(iv) Veeramaneni Venugopalrao and others Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, reported in 2026:BHC-OS: 10204.

11. On behalf of the Arbitrator, who was present in person along with his Counsel, it is brought to my notice that on passing of the award, a certified copy of the award was sent by Registered Post to the petitioner, but however the said registered letter was returned to the Arbitrator with the endorsement that the addressee has left. The original return cover was placed before me and it was opened in the presence of the Counsel for the parties, as well as the sole Arbitrator and his Counsel. The letter has been addressed to the registered address at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 and it has returned unserved with an endorsement ‘left’.

12. It is also further contended by the learned Arbitrator that he does not have any of the records relating to the arbitration proceedings as it was concluded way back in the year, 2015 and that the entire records have been infected by pests and termites and are totally destroyed. It is to be noted that the Arbitrator is also a practicing Advocate of this Court. In fact, there is also an allegation made by the petitioner that the very same Arbitrator has been appointed to arbitrate disputes concerning the petitioner and various other third parties. However, when a question was put by me to the sole Arbitrator, he did not deny the said fact that he had occasions to act as Arbitrator, in other matters concerning the second respondent, but however, he stated that he is not aware of the actual number of cases in which, he was appointed as sole Arbitrator by the second respondent. Be that as it may, this may not be very relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the foregoing discussion being undertaken by me.

13. The fact that the petitioner was not served with the Arbitration Proceedings is in fact admitted, since the petitioner was set exparte only after paper publication was effected. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know of the Award only after initiation of the Execution Proceedings by the second respondent. In this context, the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court in E.P. No.102 of 2024 assumes significance. In the said affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he is a permanent resident of 8/25, Permabur High Road, Jamalia, Perambur Barracks, Chennai -12 for past several years and that the address mentioned in the cause title viz., No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is not his address and he has further stated that in the said affidavit that the award was an exparte award and he came to know of the Execution Petition only after substituted service was effected in a newspaper, that too, through a friend. In the very same affidavit he has also stated that he is taking steps to challenge the arbitral award dated 18.04.2015, by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On these grounds, the petitioner sought to set aside the exparte order in E.P. No.102 of 2024.

14. The second respondent filed a counter to the said application stating that the petitioner has sworn to a false affidavit by contending that No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is not his address at all, which is contrary to the loan agreement where the said address has been furnished by the petitioner himself. It was also contended by the second respondent that even in May 2015, the petitioner was put on notice about the award and a copy of the award was also sent by the second respondent to the petitioner which was received by him only at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10.

15. The documents on which, the second respondent initiated arbitration proceedings, all contain the address No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, as the address of the revision petitioner. In fact, I find that even after the award came to be passed on 18.04.2015, the second respondent addressed a letter dated 06.05.2015 to the very same address No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 enclosing a certified copy of the arbitration award. The same has been served on the revision petitioner, in support of which, the proof of delivery by Speed Post has also been enclosed. Besides these documents, the second respondent has also relied on Writ Proceeding filed by the petitioner and also a Deed of Additional Simple Mortgage which is dated 03.10.2016 and in all these documents, the address given by the petitioner is only No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. Thus the stand taken by the petitioner in the Execution Proceedings that No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is not his address is clearly false and mischievous.

16. Further, the petitioner does not dispute the letter dated 06.05.2015 sent by the second respondent, enclosing a copy of the arbitration award. Therefore, even if the petitioner was not served with any notice before or after the arbitration proceedings, atleast in May 2015, the petitioner was aware of the award being passed and in fact, a copy of the award was enclosed by the second respondent and sent to the petitioner. Nothing prevented the petitioner to have atleast taken diligent steps then and there, by calling upon the Arbitrator to furnish him with a certified copy to enable a challenge to be made to the award. The petitioner conveniently slept over the matter for several years together and only after attempting to set aside the exparte order in the Execution Petition, the present revision petition has been filed for a direction to the Arbitrator to furnish a certified copy of the award to enable the petitioner to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act.

17. An Arbitration award can be challenged within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the award, with an additional cushion of 30 days, which can be condoned at the discretion of the Court. The award, admittedly, has been passed way back in the year 2015, the petitioner has been put a notice about the proceedings even in 2015, and a copy of the award itself has been enclosed along with a letter issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. Nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking for a direction immediately, on coming to know about the exparte award passed. However, without doing so, as if the petitioner’s address is not No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, a counter affidavit was filed in the Execution Proceedings seeking to set aside the exparte order passed in the Execution Petition. Overwhelming documents have been exhibited on the side of the second respondent, which clinchingly show that No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is the address of the petitioner only. It is the very same address that is reflected in all the arbitration proceedings and the Execution Proceedings as well. Therefore, if really the petitioner has shifted his residence from No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, to Jamalia, Perambur, he ought to have informed the Arbitrator about the change of address. The loan agreement containing the arbitration Clause dated 12.01.2012, specifically calls upon both the petitioner and the second respondent to intimate and inform each other of any change in postal address and otherwise, all communications would be only to the addresses mentioned in the loan agreement, which is No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10.

18. In fact, after entering appearance in the Execution Petition, the petitioner himself vide notice dated 26.08.2025, has called upon the second respondent/claimant to serve a complete set of the arbitration case petitions and accompanying documents. Strangely, the demand was not to the Arbitrator, but to the claimant/decree holder and only a copy of the said notice was marked to Arbitrator. Specifically in counter affidavit filed by the second respondent in E.A. No.2 of 2025, which was filed by the petitioner to set aside the exparte order in the EP proceedings, the second respondent has referred to the copy of the award being sent by the second respondent even as early as in May, 2015 and it has been specifically stated that the theory putforth by the petitioner that he came to know of the proceedings only 10.07.2025, is absolutely false and self serving.

19. Further, as already discussed hereinabove, after completion of the arbitral proceedings, certified copy of the award has also been sent to the registered address of the petitioner viz., No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk,

Chennai -10. At this length of time and especially when documents have been filed to substantiate that No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is the address of the petitioner, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that he does not reside in the said address, but he resides in Perambur alone. In totally unconnected proceedings between the petitioner and other parties, including writ proceedings, the petitioner has furnished his address only as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. Thus the stand taken by the petitioner that it is not his address is clearly false and invented for the purposes of the given case, to get over the non filing of the Section 34 Application in time.

20. As far as the Arbitrator is concerned, he has complied with the mandate required under the statute by sending a certified copy of the award to the registered address of the petitioner. The said letter has been returned, as already discussed, with an endorsement ‘left’. The original of the return letter was in fact filed by the Arbitrator, during the course of arguments and the cover was also opened in the presence of the petitioner and the respondents. The contents of were found to be a certified copy of the award. Therefore, now it cannot be successfully contended by the petitioner that he was not served with a copy of the award and therefore, he still has time to challenge the award under

Section 34 of the Act. When proper service of copies of the award has been attempted on the registered address of the petitioner and even thereafter, when the petitioner had notice about the arbitration proceedings in May, 2015, when the second respondent informed the petitioner about the exparte award, in fact, enclosing a copy of the award, the total inaction and silence on the part of the petitioner for close to 10 years cannot be countenanced. Unfortunately, in the Execution Proceedings, a contradictory stand has been taken as if No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10 is not even the address of the petitioner which is also proved to be false, by several documents filed by the second respondent, all of which indicate that the petitioner has always mentioned his address in all registered documents and official documents only as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10.

21. In such view of the matter, there is no merit in the claim of the petitioner that he has not been served with a copy of the award and therefore, a direction should be issued to the Arbitrator to furnish him with a copy of award to enable him to move a Section 34 Application. The Delhi High Court, in a case where the award was passed on 13.03.2003 and an objection was filed on 25.05.2005 and where also the petitioner contended that he had requested the Arbitrator for certified copies of the award and followed up the same with reminders to enable him to challenge the award, held that, if really the award sufferer was interested in obtaining a signed copy of the award, he could have gone to the Arbitrator’s Office and requested for a certified/signed copy. The Court also held that despite receipt of the copy of the award along with Execution Petition also, the award sufferer did not file any objections immediately, and in such circumstances, held that the objections cannot be considered as they were barred under Section 34 of the Act, having been filed beyond the period prescribed from the date of receipt of the award. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Section 34 Application on the ground of delay and the same not being maintainable.

22. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, held that when an award has not been challenged, then finality cannot be questioned by way of an objection as both would tantamount to the same thing. In fact, a copy of the award has been filed by the petitioner himself in the typedset of papers. Therefore, though it is contended by Mr.Sivaraman, learned counsel that the copy was obtained by the petitioner in the Execution Proceedings, it cannot rule out the possibility of the copy of award that was furnished by the second respondent along with his letter dated 06.05.2015, being enclosed in the typedset of papers. In any event, the petitioner who has set up a false case as if

No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10, is not his address, is not entitled to any indulgence whatsoever, when it has been clinchingly established that the said address is the address of the revision petitioner and therefore, when the Arbitrator has sent a certified copy of the award to the said registered address, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said registered letter being returned with the endorsement ‘left’ by contending that he resides at different address and not at No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -10. If there was any change of address, it was for the petitioner to inform the arbitrator accordingly. In fact, even as late as in 2025, the petitioner has not requested the Arbitrator to furnish him with a copy of the award but only addressed a letter to the second respondent asking for papers in connection with Arbitration Proceedings. This again, only implies that then the petitioner had a copy of the award with him.

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan and Co's case (referred herein supra), in fact, held that mere dispatch of notice by registered post would be sufficient compliance, when it was sent to the admittedly registered address of the addressee. I have already pointed out that it was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the Arbitrator about any change of his registered address. The Bombay High Court, in Veeramani's case, (referred herein supra), in similar circumstances held that dispatch of the award to the last known address would be sufficient and the party aware of the Arbitration and being passive and failing to inform his change of address cannot plead non receipt of award under Section 31(5) of the Act and contend that he still has time to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act, since the award has not been served on him.

24. Therefore, viewed from all angles, the present direction sought for by the petitioner to direct the Arbitrator to furnish a certified copy of the award is clearly mischievous and only to get over the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Act. I do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

25-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes RKP To

1. The IV Additional District Court, Ponneri.

2. Kumarichelvan Bosco, No.294, New Law Chambers, High Court Campaus, High Court, Chennai - 600 104.

P.B.BALAJI, J. RKP Pre-delivery Order in CRP. No.2526 of 2026 and CMP. No.10679 of 2026 25-09-2026