https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273473 In arbitral proceedings, a party should not be proceeded ex parte without a further notice of the tribunal's intention to do so and a fair opportunity to be heard. The Delhi HC held that repeated service attempts alone did not satisfy arbitral fairness, and that the communication requirement under Section 24(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 supported an additional intimation before ex parte action and reliance on evidence against the absent party. The ex parte order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to participate in the arbitration subject to compliance with the imposed bank guarantee condition. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:40:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273473 In arbitral proceedings, a party should not be proceeded ex parte without a further notice of the tribunal's intention to do so and a fair opportunity to be heard. The Delhi HC held that repeated service attempts alone did not satisfy arbitral fairness, and that the communication requirement under Section 24(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 supported an additional intimation before ex parte action and reliance on evidence against the absent party. The ex parte order was set aside, and the appellant was permitted to participate in the arbitration subject to compliance with the imposed bank guarantee condition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273473