Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Petitioners have impugned the arbitral award mainly on the following grounds. The impugned award is bad, irrational, arbitrary and unfair and is liable to be set aside. The impugned award suffers from patent illegality and is perverse as Ld. Sole Arbitrator has not followed the due process of law. Arbitration proceedings were conducted in an unfair and biased manner, thereby rendering the impugned award as being against the public policy of India. No hearings of the matter ever took place in reality. No notice for hearing was ever served upon the petitioner. As per the principles of natural justice and accepted practice and procedures, it was incumbent upon Ld. Sole Arbitrator to call the parties to present and lead arguments in the case. Neither virtual nor physical arguments/hearings had taken place before Ld. Sole Arbitrator. No document, either it is the impugned ex parte award or the Statement of Claim or the alleged arbitration notice dated 29/09/2021 was signed or executed. The award dated 29/09/2021 which bears the signatures appears to be the case where the image of the signature of Ld. Sole Arbitrator is affixed on the award. It may very well be the case of forgery as no original award has been prepared. The notice dated 29/09/2021 has no sanctity under law as it is unsigned and unexecuted. The Statement of Claim filed by respondent is also unsigned and unexecuted and unverified. No evidence was called by Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Respondent had not filed any evidence by way of affidavit and this defect goes to the root of the case. The Statement of Claim is unsigned and unverified and in the absence of any verified document, Ld. Sole Arbitrator ought not to have passed any award in the favour of the respondent. No agreement was reached between the parties to the subject procedure adopted by the alleged arbitral institution. The proceedings are completely sham, arbitrary and unilateral in nature. Ld. Sole Arbitrator ought to have given opportunity to the petitioner before passing of the award. No physical or virtual proceedings took place nor any arguments were heard. Without giving any party any opportunity to present oral or written arguments, the passing of the award is liable to be set aside. As per Clause 10.1 of the agreement inter se petitioners and respondent/claimant, the arbitration seat was at New Delhi and petitioners never gave any consent for virtual arbitration. The arbitration proceedings were in fact not even virtual, and rather, online in nature as no hearing in fact ever took place. Such procedure in arbitration proceedings is unheard of. Clause 10 of the agreement inter se parties to the lis states the governance of law and dispute between the parties is subject to the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts, and the Presolv360 ODR is a Mumbai based company, hence having no jurisdiction to constitute arbitration proceeding. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner to give his choice of the arbitrator by the respondent and straightway, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted by the respondent unilaterally. The proceedings in arbitration were completely sham in nature as no notices of hearing were ever served upon petitioners. No notice under Section 21 of the Act was served upon the petitioners and petitioners were not given opportunity to object to the appointment of Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Unilateral appointment of Ld. Sole Arbitrator and the alleged arbitration institution is liable to be set aside. M/s Edgecraft Solutions Private Limited has no authority under law to form any such institution. Petitioners had never consented to refer their dispute to any such institution or specifically M/s Edgecraft Solutions Private Limited or Presolv360 ODR at the time of the execution of the Agreement dated 29/02/2020. Presolv360 ODR or M/s Edgecraft Solutions Private Limited is not designated by High Court or the Supreme Court of India and had no power to appoint any Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Respondent/claimant ought to have taken the consent of the petitioner before referring the dispute to such private institution. The procedure adopted was contrary to agreement and the award is illegal and liable to be set aside. Presolv360 is a private company and there exists every justifiable doubt in the mind of petitioner company that respondent is acting in connivance with the institution to pass instant awards against its borrowers. The entire front of the independent platform has been created to defy the authorities and had no sanction from any authority. If the corporate veil is lifted it will become very clear that few private parties are forming corporate to defy the public policy.