Appeal delay condonable if arbitral award was passed ex-parte and not effectively served on the party.

The Petitioner, a member of the Respondent No. 1 Society, was subject to arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, regarding loan dues

The Petitioner participated in early proceedings, but he alleged that on May 28, 2004—the date the matter was reserved for orders—no arguments were actually heard as he was informed the Arbitrator would not be sitting

Crucially, while the Petitioner had signed previous proceeding sheets, his signature was absent from the May 28, 2004 entry

An award was passed on June 3, 2004, and allegedly sent via UPC to the Society’s address rather than the Petitioner’s residential address, which had been specifically provided for correspondence

The Petitioner claimed he only learned of the award in January 2015

His subsequent appeal to the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (DCT) was dismissed on September 18, 2023, solely on the ground of an 11-year delay

Section 61 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972, regarding the initiation of arbitration

Fundamental principle of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), noting that an award passed without hearing a party is ex-parte

Requirements for the valid communication of an award, emphasizing that service must be directed to the correct address provided by the party to be effective

The Court observed significant procedural lapses by the Arbitrator, noting that the Petitioner’s missing signature on the final proceeding sheet supported the claim that he was not heard, making the award effectively ex-parte

The Court further found that the Award was not properly communicated; it was sent via UPC to the Society’s flat address despite the Petitioner having notified the Arbitrator of a different correspondence address

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS) could not produce the original UPC receipt

While the Court acknowledged the Petitioner’s own lapse in failing to follow up on the proceedings for 11 years, it determined that the procedural irregularities and the lack of a fair hearing outweighed a strict application of the limitation period

The Court held that while there were lapses on both sides, the interest of justice required the appeal to be heard, provided the Petitioner deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with the RCS by March 20, 2026, as a condition for restoration

The DCT was directed to adjudicate the matter within four months