JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petitioner filed under Section 34(2)(iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 02.05.2022 bearing No.ARC/CIFCL/VL/RPK/402/2022.) 1. This order will now dispose of captioned matter. 2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings/orders made by this Court in the listings on 13.07.2022 and 27.07.2022, which read as follows: 'Proceedings made on 13.07.2022 'Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb OP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 14.06.2022 under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] assailing an 'arbitral award dated 02.05.2022 bearing reference Arbitration Case No.ARC/CIFCL/VL/RPK/402/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. Mr.R.S.Jain Le Submar, learned counsel on record for petitioners who is before this Court, adverting to grounds of challenge submits that the petitioners had not received any communication from the respondent and petitioners were suddenly visited with the impugned award. It is submitted that on reading the impugned award it came to light that 'Arbitral Tribunal' [hereinafter 'AT' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has proceeded on the basis that petitioners have been duly served. No notice was received either from the respondent or from AT before receipt of impugned award on 02.05.2022 is learned counsel's emphatic say. 3. Registry to requisition records of AT from the sole Arbitrator i.e., Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, at 'Singapore Plaza', F-6, 2nd Floor, Linghi Chetty Street, Chenani-600 001. Learned sole Arbitrator is directed to place before this Court the entire records of AT qua impugned award dated 02.05.2022 bearing reference Arbitration Case No.ARC/CIFCL/VL/RPK/402/2022 in a sealed envelope. 4. Registry to place the same before this Court in the next listing. 5. List a fortnight hence. List on 27.07.2022.' 'Proceedings made on 27.07.2022 Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 13.07.2022, wherein and whereby the records of Arbitral Tribunal is requisitioned. The records of the Arbitral Tribunal are before this Court in a sealed envelope. List on 01.08.2022.' 4. To be noted, thereafter there were listings on 01.08.2022, 02.08.2022, 04.08.2022 and 10.08.2022 when the matter was merely renotified. 5. The records of the Arbitral Tribunal are before this Court in a sealed envelope. List on 01.08.2022.' 4. To be noted, thereafter there were listings on 01.08.2022, 02.08.2022, 04.08.2022 and 10.08.2022 when the matter was merely renotified. 5. The aforementioned proceedings are telltale qua the lone ground on which the campaign against the impugned award is predicated. To be noted, the short forms and short references used in the earlier proceedings will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. 6. This Court opened the sealed envelope placed before this Court in the presence of Mr.V.Jeyaprakasham, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the two petitioners. To be noted, Mr.V.Jeyaprakasham, who is before this Court submits that he represented the counsel on record on all the previous listings including the listing on 13.07.2022 [in the 13.07.2022 proceedings name of the counsel on record has been mentioned]. 7. Be that as it may, a careful perusal of the records of AT brings to light that AT has sent notice dated 28.03.2022 but both the petitioners in the captioned Arb.OP (respondents before AT, who shall hereinafter be referred collectively as 'borrowers' for the sake of convenience and clarity). This 28.03.2022 notice of AT is fixing the hearing on 11.04.2022 at 11.00.am. A perusal of the records of AT brings to light that this notice has been mailed to borrowers by Registered post with acknowledgement due to the address of the petitioners shown in the captioned Arb.OP in the short and long cause titles and it has been duly received. A scanned reproduction of the 28.03.2022 notice together with the postal acknowledgement cards are as follows: 8. This Court compared the signature of the second petitioner with that of the signature in the postal acknowledgement cards and to the naked eye it comes across as the same signature. This Court also called for the vakalatnama of the petitioners and verified/compared the signature in the vakalatnama with the signatures in the acknowledgement cards. However, when the aforementioned notice and acknowledgement cards were shown to the counsel before this Court, learned counsel did not enter upon any disputation in this regard. Therefore, it follows as a sequitur that the lone point on which the campaign against the impugned award was entertained in the admission Board is flattened and does not hold water. However, when the aforementioned notice and acknowledgement cards were shown to the counsel before this Court, learned counsel did not enter upon any disputation in this regard. Therefore, it follows as a sequitur that the lone point on which the campaign against the impugned award was entertained in the admission Board is flattened and does not hold water. The inevitable sequitur is the petitioners' campaign against the impugned award fails. 9. Registry is directed to return the records of the AT to the learned Arbitrator under due acknowledgement. 10. Though this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for costs being imposed, considering the nature of the matter, facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the submissions have been made by learned counsel for petitioners, this Court refrains itself from imposing costs in this case making it clear that in days to come in cases of similar nature if it becomes necessary, costs may have to be imposed as the ground for requisitioning records of AT is clearly frivolous. Captioned Arb.OP is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.