R. Raghunandan Rao, J
1. The appellant herein had obtained certain financial assistance from the 1st respondent herein, to an extent of Rs.80 lakhs. A loan agreement was also executed between the appellant and the 1st respondent wherein the appellant agreed to repay the aforesaid amount in sixty (60) monthly installments. Apart from this, the appellant had also created security over immovable property by depositing his title deeds. Subsequently, the appellant became a defaulter. In view of the said default, the respondent had initiated arbitration proceedings, in terms of the arbitration clause available in the loan agreement. The arbitration proceedings resulted in an award, being passed by the learned Arbitrator, on 11.05.2022, in Arbitration Case No.979 of 2021.
2. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award had moved the III Additional District Judge, Nellore, by way of A.O.P.No.640 of 2022, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The main grounds urged before the trial Court were that the award was passed without notice being given to the appellant and other signatories to the loan agreement and that the appellant and the other signatories, to the loan agreement, had signed the loan agreement without the terms and conditions of the said agreement being explained to them. Both these contentions were rejected by the trial Court which dismissed the petition, by an order dated 21.08.2025.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, dated 21.08.2025, the appellant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.
4. Heard Smt. K. Pallavi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the award had been passed without any notice being given to the appellant herein. She would also contend that the signatures of the appellant and other signatories to the loan agreement were obtained by the 1st respondent without explaining any of the terms of the agreement and without allowing the appellant to go through all the terms.
6. A perusal of the award as well as the order of the trial Court would show that notices has been sent to the appellant and the other signatories to the loan agreement. The trial Court compared the addresses shown on the acknowledgment received from the appellant with the address shown in A.O.P.No.640 of 2022 and held that they were the same. The trial Court also took into account the fact that the notice, dated 09.1.2.2021, issued by the 1st respondent company regarding the initiation of arbitration was also refused by the appellant and the other signatories to the loan agreement. In that view of the matter, the trial Court took the view that notice had been served on the appellant.
7. On the question of the appellant signing the loan agreement, without being aware of the contents of the agreement, both the Arbitrator as well as the trial Court took the view that the appellant having signed the document, cannot turn around and claim ignorance of the terms and conditions in the said document.
8. This Court does not find any reason to differ with the findings of the trial Court or the Arbitrator regarding service of notice on the appellant and the knowledge regarding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It may also be noted, that the appellant, except raising procedural issues has not disputed or denied the fact of default or quantum of default. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with either the award or the order of the trial Court.
9. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
