JUDGMENT ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. The petitioner has challenged an arbitral award and invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act"), mainly on the ground that no full opportunity was given by the arbitral tribunal, as he was unable to attend the proceeding at Mumbai, as he is resident of West Bengal. For the insufficiency of time, he could not attend the proceeding. The arbitral tribunal, after considering the issue about the jurisdiction, by an order dated 8th May, 2008, proceeded with the arbitration, as the arbitration rules of Bharat Merchants' Chamber (for short "the Chamber"), provides that any dispute relating to the transaction, would be subject to the arbitration at Mumbai only. The transactions between the parties were based on the bills containing the arbitration clause. The defendant had, admittedly, accepted the goods and even remitted certain amount. It shows that he has full knowledge of the terms and conditions read with the rules and the trade practice of the Chamber. The arbitral tribunal, after considering the material available on record, including the documents forwarded by the petitioner, came to a clear conclusion that the amount was due and payable and accordingly passed the award against the petitioner after adjusting the amount already paid. The signed confirmation letters and bills and the accounts on record, which are part of the proceedings, goes to the root of the matter. The submission, that the petitioner wanted to dispute the same, as there was no such transaction took place, has no force. The petitioner's part - payment of about Rs. 4 lakhs further supports the case that the transaction took place and the parties acted accordingly. It is desirable to give full opportunity to both the parties but in the case, in spite of opportunity given and, basically in commercial transaction like this, where in spite of full knowledge about the notice, arbitration proceeding and the dates, but for one reason or other avoided to appear personally, therefore, insufficiency of time on one occasion, even if accepted, still it is not the case of no notice or opportunity. No sufficient case is made out. No sufficient case is made out. Having once agreed to the terms of the Chamber, which provide the settlement of such dispute only at Mumbai then this excuse/defence of no time to reach and prepare, in no way sufficient to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the arbitral tribunal, based upon the Chamber rules and the trade practice between the parties, apart from the material on the record. This ignorance and the defence now as raised, in my view, is insufficient to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the arbitral tribunal, based upon the confirmation of letters/accounts signed by the petitioner. There is no misconduct. The arbitral tribunal is empowered to pass such award, specially when the party deliberately avoids to participate in the arbitration proceedings in order to frustrate and delay the admitted claim [Kailash Rani Dang v. Rakesh Bala Aneja and another, AIR 2009 SC 1662 = 2008 SCACTC 717 (SC) = 2008 (4) Arb. LR 649 (SC)]. The view so taken by the arbitral tribunal, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the record. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.