https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193980 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. en-us Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:25:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193980 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193980