Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: incorrect address in Power Grid Corporation Of India Ltd vs M/S Jugendra Singh And Company on 6 March, 2024Matching Fragments
26. There is nothing on record which would indicate that the respondent had issued a communication to the appellant requesting the appellant to forward all future communications to the respondent to the Prem Nagar address.
27. It is important to note that there is no material on record to indicate as to why the legal notice dated 30.11.2018 was addressed at an incorrect address of the respondent. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant had not received any response to the notice dated 24.06.2015, it made local enquiries, which revealed the respondent's address to be the Prem Nagar address. However, as stated above, there is no material on record to support the said contention.
28. Thereafter, the Letter of Invocation dated 09.05.2019 - which the appellant claims to be the notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act - was issued.
29. The impugned award indicates that all communications of the Arbitral Tribunal were also addressed to the respondent at the incorrect address, being the Prem Nagar address. The respondent remained unrepresented before the Arbitral Tribunal. However, at the fourth arbitral hearing held on 20.02.2020, one Mr. Murari Lal Sharma appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal and FAO (COMM) 156/2023 claimed to be the authorized representative of the respondent. This was stoutly disputed by the respondent, as according to the respondent, it had not authorized any person to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal. Be that as it may, Mr. Murari Lal Sharma had reportedly informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the communications issued by the Arbitral Tribunal were addressed at an incorrect address and the respondent had not received any earlier communications sent by the appellant or the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore, could not attend any of the hearings.
30. The Arbitral Tribunal did not accept Mr. Murari Lal Sharma's authority to appear for the respondent, however, took note of the fact that the earlier communications were addressed at an incorrect address - Prem Nagar address
- and accordingly, directed that all future communications be sent at the respondent's address as reflected in the LOA (that is, Rajender Petrol Pump address).
31. Since there is no material to even remotely indicate that the respondent's correct address was the Prem Nagar address, this Court must accept that the notice dated 09.05.2019 was sent at an incorrect address.
32. The respondent had denied receipt of the said notice allegedly invoking arbitration and, there is no material to indicate to the contrary. Thus, the only inescapable conclusion is that the Letter of Invocation dated 09.05.2019 was not received by the respondent.