JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Aggrieved by judgments dated 13.11.2010 and 14.06.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, ING Infotek International Pvt. Limited has filed this first appeal. 2. There was agreement between appellant and respondent No.1- Haryana Warehousing corporation (the Corporation) under which appellant was to provide some service as management support provider to the Corporation. Dispute arose between the parties. The Corporation referred the dispute to proforma respondent/Arbitrator an officer of the State Government, in accordance with arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. 3. Arbitrator gave notice of the proceedings to the appellant and when the same was not served, the appellant was served by publication in two newspapers i.e. Times of India, Bangalore and Hidustan Times, Chandigarh, but in spite thereof, the appellant did not appear before the Arbitrator. Thereupon the Arbitrator gave award dated 06.02.2002 Annexure A-1. 4. Appellant by filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) challenged the said award inter alia on the ground that proper notice of appointment of Arbitrator and regarding arbitration proceedings was not given to the appellant because the notices were sent at old address of the appellant and thus opportunity of leading evidence and hearing was also not granted to the appellant. 5. Respondent No.1-Corporation controverted the averments made in the objections of the appellant and pleaded that the appellant was duly served with notice regarding appointment of Arbitrator and arbitration proceedings and appellant was also served by publication in newspapers. Various other please were also raised. 6. Learned Additional District Judge, Pamchkula vide judgment dated 13.11.2010 dismissed the objections filed by the appellant. Application for review of the said judgment filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Pamchkula vide judgment dated 14.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred. 7. I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of the lower Court as well as record of the Arbitrator. 8. Feeling aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred. 7. I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the case file including file of the lower Court as well as record of the Arbitrator. 8. Counsel for the appellant emphatically contended that notice of arbitration proceedings was issued to the appellant at its old address of Bangalore whereas address of registered office of the appellant at Bangalore had changed and there was also address of House No.775, Sector 22A, Chandigarh of appellant’s Director Vivek Aditya and both these addresses had been duly intimated to the Corporation, but in spite thereof, the said addresses were not given by the Corporation to the Arbitrator. Consequently, Arbitrator could not issue notice on the said addresses. 9. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Corporation contended that Vivek Aditya was not Director of the appellant company as intimated by the Registrar of Companies and, therefore, the Corporation could not act on communications sent by Vivek Aditya, but nevertheless the Corporation responded to the communications of Vivek Aditya at the address given by him, but he did not acknowledge the same and, therefore, the appellant-Company was served at its old address which was given in the agreement. 10. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of the record reveals that there was change in the Directors of the appellant- Company. The said change was communicated not only by appellant’s new Director Vivek Aditya but also by statutory auditor (Chartered Accountant) of the appellant-Company to the Corporation by various communications. Sole witness of the Corporation before the trial Court admitted the receipt of some of the said communications. Reference is required to be made to the last communication dated 19.05.2001 Exhibit P-15 sent by Vikas Aditya, another Director of the appellant-Company to the Corporation enclosing therewith form No.32 Exhibit P-16. By this communication, the Corporation was requested to communicate with the appellant at its new registered address of Bangalore as well as the above mentioned address of Chandigarh which was also mentioned at the top of the printed letter head on which this communication was sent. Receipt of this communication by the Corporation has been admitted by witness of the Corporation. In spite of this communication, the Corporation did not like to place these addresses before the Arbitrator for service of the appellant-company with notice of arbitration proceedings. Receipt of this communication by the Corporation has been admitted by witness of the Corporation. In spite of this communication, the Corporation did not like to place these addresses before the Arbitrator for service of the appellant-company with notice of arbitration proceedings. It has been admitted by the Corporation’s witness that these communications including communication Exhibit P-15 were not placed before the Arbitrator. Consequently notice of arbitration proceedings sent at old address of the appellant-Company, which had already communicated the change of address, is no notice in the eyes of law. The said notice sent by the Arbitrator was even received back with remarks ‘addressee left’. Notice by publication in newspapers was also served as per old address of appellant. In these circumstances, it is born out from the evidence on record that notice of arbitration proceedings was not properly served on the appellant-Company and consequently the appellant did not get opportunity to lead evidence. Consequently there is sufficient ground to set aside the award within purview of Section 34 of the Act because the award stands vitiated on the aforesaid grounds. 11. Counsel for the Corporation contended that on receipt of communication of Vivek Aditya/Vikas Aditya regarding change of address, some letters were sent to them at the changed address but the same were not even acknowledged. It was also pointed out that the Corporation had also sought information from the Registrar of Companies regarding registered address of the appellant-Company as well as the names of its Directors and as per information supplied by the Registrar of Companies, there was neither nay change in registered office address of the appellant-Company nor any change in the names of Directors and thus Vivek Aditya and Vikas Aditya were not depicted to be Directors of the Company in the said communication. It is true that the Corporation did make some efforts to know the correct position about the address of the appellant-Company as well as about the names of its Directors. It is true that the Corporation did make some efforts to know the correct position about the address of the appellant-Company as well as about the names of its Directors. However, even after these efforts, new Directors of the appellant as well as Statutory Auditor of the appellant had sent subsequent communications to the Corporation regarding change of address of registered office of the appellant-Company as well as regarding Chandigarh address of its aforesaid two Directors, but the Corporation did not take notice thereof and did not bring the same to the notice of the Arbitrator for service of notice of arbitration proceedings on the appellant-Company at its new address of Bangalore or at the address of Chandigarh. The Corporation as per its own version had tried to communicate with new Directors of the appellant-Company pursuant to communications received from them. Consequently the Corporation could also request the Arbitrator to serve notice of the arbitration proceedings on the appellant at the aforesaid new address but it was not so done. Even form No.32 Exhibit P-16 regarding new Directos and change of address was enclosed with letter dated 19.05.2001 Exhibit P-15, but in spite thereof, the new addresses of appellant and its Directors were not intimated to the Arbitrator for service of notice on the appellant-Company. 12. The submission of counsel for respondent No.1-Corporation that form No.18 Exhibit P-17 alothough dated 01.10.2000 appears to have been submitted in the office of Registrar of Companies on 21.08.2002 cannot be accepted because the date 21.08.2002 has been written as the date regarding ‘registered/recorded/filed on 21.08.2002’. Consequently it cannot be said that this communication was received in the Registrar of Company on 21.08.2002. On the contrary, there is also form No.18 Exhibit P-18 regarding change of address of appellant-Company and the same purports to have been received in the office of Registrar of Companies on 08.11.2000. Consequently change of address of appellant-Company had been communicated to the Registrar of Companies also long before the Arbitrator sent notice of the arbitration proceedings to the appellant-Company. The said change had also been intimated to the respondent No.1-Corporation long before the commencement of arbitration proceedings. However, in spite thereof, notice of arbitration proceedings was sent to the appellant at its old address and was, therefore, received unserved with remarks ‘addressee left’. The said change had also been intimated to the respondent No.1-Corporation long before the commencement of arbitration proceedings. However, in spite thereof, notice of arbitration proceedings was sent to the appellant at its old address and was, therefore, received unserved with remarks ‘addressee left’. Consequently there was no proper service of notice of arbitration proceedings on the appellant and resultantly the appellant did not get opportunity to lead evidence before the Arbitrator. The impugned award of the Arbitrator is, therefore, liable to be set aside on the aforesaid grounds within the purview of Section 34 of the Act. Finding of the trial Court, to the contrary, is, therefore, not sustainable being based on misreading and misappreciation of evidence. It appears that the trial Court did not take into consideration the vital documents Exhibit P-15 to Exhibit P-18 resulting in erroneous finding. 13. As a necessary consequence of the discussion aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed. Impugned judgments dated 13.11.2010 and 14.06.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula are set aside and objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act are allowed. Award dated 06.02.2002 Annexure A-1 passed by the Arbitrator is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator i.e. Secretary, Agriculture to Government of Haryana on 22.08.2012 at 10.00am.