15 July 2021| Komal Narula v. DMI Finance Pvt. Ltd. | OMP (Comm.) 166 of 2019 | Vibhu Bakhru J | 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3698

An arbitral award was set aside by Bakhru J, accepting the petitioner’s argument that she did not have any notice of the appointment of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings.

The tribunal had proceeded ex parte against several parties (including the petitioner and her former husband) on the assumption that they had refused service. In the tribunal’s view, the petitioner refused service in 2016. But Bakhru J found that the refusal in 2016 was at the former matrimonial home of the petitioner, which she had already left in 2014.

The same notice was sent by a speed post to the petitioner’s current address, and was not received back. Bakhru J noted Section 3 ACA and said that the speed post receipt was on record, so the petitioner would be deemed to be served. But this, in his view, did not establish that “in fact, the petitioner was served the notices or was aware of the proceedings.”

He also said that the tribunal’s assumption that the petitioner refused the notice was rebuttable. Further, a lawyer who had appeared once in the early stages of the proceedings was presumed to represent the petitioner too, which was not factually correct.

The award against the petitioner was set aside with liberty to institute fresh proceedings.

Read the judgment here.