Presumed service of arbitral award barred a delayed challenge, while ex parte proceedings remained valid for want of timely objection.

Service of an arbitral award sent to the correct address was presumed when the postal cover returned with endorsements of refusal and door locked, so a belated Section 34 challenge was time-barred and could not be entertained. The court also held that the sole arbitrator's appointment and the ex parte proceedings were not vitiated: the parties had agreed to arbitration, notices were served, the appellant failed to invoke a timely challenge, and it did not avail opportunities to participate, file objections, or cross-examine. No bias, illegality, or denial of natural justice was shown, so the award was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation; (ii) Whether the appointment of the sole arbitrator and the ex parte arbitral proceedings were vitiated for want of consent or violation of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The award was sent by registered post to the correct address of the appellant and the cover returned with endorsements indicating refusal and door locked. The Court applied the presumption of service and treated the award as duly served. On that basis, the petition under Section 34, filed well beyond the prescribed period, could not be entertained. The subsequent correspondence seeking another copy of the award did not extend limitation.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the appointment of the sole arbitrator and the ex parte arbitral proceedings were vitiated for want of consent or violation of natural justice.

Analysis: The parties had agreed to arbitration in the underlying agreement, and notices of the constitution of the tribunal and the arbitral proceedings were served on the appellant. The appellant did not raise a timely challenge under Section 13(2), did not participate despite repeated notices, and did not avail the opportunities given to file objections or cross-examine the witness. The Court found no material to establish bias, illegality, or denial of natural justice, and held that the tribunal had proceeded lawfully on the material before it.

Conclusion: The appointment of the arbitrator and the ex parte proceedings were held valid, and the award was not liable to be set aside on those grounds.

Final Conclusion: The civil miscellaneous appeal failed, and the order refusing to set aside the arbitral award was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an award is served at the correct address and the cover is returned with refusal, service is presumed and a belated Section 34 challenge is barred; a party that receives notice of the tribunal and then remains absent waives the objection to the arbitral process unless a legally sustainable ground under the Act is established.

---