Arbitral award challenge rejected where authority, documentary proof, and ex parte procedure did not show prejudice.

An arbitral award was defended against challenge on three procedural grounds: authority to institute proceedings, use of a photocopy instead of the original hire purchase agreement, and the tribunal's decision to proceed ex parte without a fresh notice. The records showed authority through a general power of attorney, service of arbitration notices, and participation without timely jurisdictional objection, so the claim and proceedings were treated as valid. The absence of the original agreement did not justify interference where the documentary record supported the claim and strict evidence rules did not apply. Repeated defaults and lack of demonstrated prejudice meant the ex parte procedure was not treated as misconduct or a breach of natural justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the claim petition and arbitral proceedings were vitiated for want of authority, improper service, or lack of timely jurisdictional objection; (ii) whether non-production of the original hire purchase agreement and reliance on a photocopy warranted setting aside the award; and (iii) whether the ex parte course adopted by the arbitrator without a fresh notice of intention to proceed ex parte amounted to legal misconduct.

Issue (i): whether the claim petition and arbitral proceedings were vitiated for want of authority, improper service, or lack of timely jurisdictional objection

Analysis: The records showed that the claimant had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the signatory to institute proceedings on its behalf. The notices of arbitration and appointment of the arbitrator were served on the petitioners, and the petitioners participated in the proceedings without taking a timely protest on jurisdiction. The objection regarding want of seal or authority was therefore unsupported, and the failure to raise a jurisdictional challenge at the earliest opportunity weakened the plea based on procedural invalidity.

Conclusion: The claim petition and arbitral proceedings were held valid, and the objection was rejected against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): whether non-production of the original hire purchase agreement and reliance on a photocopy warranted setting aside the award

Analysis: The arbitrator's records showed that the original agreement had been produced and later returned for use in criminal proceedings. The dispute was not about execution of the agreement or the existence of liability, and the arbitral process is not governed by the strict technical rules of the Evidence Act. A photocopy produced later did not, by itself, establish absence of the original or legal misconduct, particularly when the documentary record supported the claim and the authenticity of the transaction was not effectively displaced.

Conclusion: The award was not liable to be set aside on the ground of non-production of the original agreement.

Issue (iii): whether the ex parte course adopted by the arbitrator without a fresh notice of intention to proceed ex parte amounted to legal misconduct

Analysis: The petitioners had been given repeated opportunities, had earlier been set ex parte and restored, and still remained absent on later dates. Section 25 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 permits the tribunal to proceed where a party fails to appear, and the decisive question was whether prejudice resulted from the absence of a second notice. In the circumstances, the repeated defaults, prior opportunities, and absence of demonstrated prejudice meant that the omission to issue another ex parte notice did not amount to misconduct or violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The ex parte award was upheld and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed in substance, as none of the pleaded grounds established authority defect, evidentiary illegality, or prejudicial procedural misconduct sufficient to interfere with the award.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not set aside an arbitral award for procedural irregularity where authority to sue is established, the parties participated without timely jurisdictional protest, the documentary foundation of the claim is supported by the record, and no prejudice is shown from the tribunal proceeding ex parte after repeated defaults by the party concerned.

---