The petitioner is aggrieved with the order passed at Ext.P2 by the Tribunal. The petitioner's specific contention before the Tribunal against the award passed at Ext.P1 was that, though, he was present, the arbitrator did not permit him to adduce evidence and hence he was set ex parte. 2. The said contention is based on Ext.P1 award. This Court has time and again noticed that the awards passed by the arbitrators in printed forms are not proper in an adjudicatory exercise. One such palpable error comes to fore in this case. In Ext.P1 printed form, it is stated so “®ÄßVµfß/µZ ÙÞ¼øáIÞÏßøáKá/ÙÞ¼øßÜïÞJÄßÈÞW ®µíØí ÉÞVGßÏÞÏß dɶcÞÉߺîá”.
While striking out the options provided therein, inadvertently the absence was striken out and hence the presence is inferred.
3. The Tribunal rightly found that the petitioner cannot claim benefit of such inadvertent mistake committed by the arbitrator. In fact the petitioner neither before the Tribunal or before this Court has alleged a specific date on which he was present before the arbitrator. The petitioner also does not speak of any objections filed before the arbitrator. In such circumstance, the contention of the petitioner that he was present, but was declared as ex parte has to be rejected.
4. What is to be looked at is the prejudice caused to the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly, is a surety to a loan transaction. It is not clear as to what were the contentions the petitioner seeks to urge before the arbitrator, if at all he was present and he was permitted to adduce evidence. The petitioner does not have a case that, the arbitrator has passed the award contrary to the terms of the agreement. The petitioner in the status of a surety could not put forward any contention with respect to the payments made, in the loan account also, by the original borrower. Before this Court also the petitioner does not raise any contention against the award passed, but, for the bland assertion that, he was not permitted to adduce evidence. In the context of the petitioner having not put forth any case as to the evidence he could have adduced, this Court has to find that there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner. The setting aside of an award under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be justified on such specious grounds. The Tribunal's order also is found to be proper.
5. Considering only the fact that, the writ petition was pending from 2012 onwards and that stay was granted, the recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance on condition of the petitioner remitting the balance amounts in 'twelve' equal monthly instalments. The petitioners shall produce the certified copy of the judgment before the respondent-Bank and the Bank shall quantify the dues as on 20.12.2014 and issue a statement of accounts, in accordance with which the instalments shall be paid. The 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 01.01.2015 and thereafter; the due date of instalments falling on the 1st of each succeeding month. If default is committed in two consecutive instalments, then the recovery proceedings shall revive and continue. On the satisfaction of the dues as per the statement, the Bank shall give a statement of the future interest from 20.12.2014 and the same shall be settled as the 13th instalment.
The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs.
AMV/28/11/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE