Ex Parte Order Can Be Recalled If Party Complies With Directions & Legal Issues Require Full Hearing For Proper Adjudication: MP High Court

Brief Facts:

This application has been filed for recalling an ex-parte order passed by this Court on 15.07.2024, whereby this Court has held that the award submitted by the applicant along with the application under Sections 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) is executable.

The present application seeks recall of the order dated 15.07.2024 on the ground that the non-applicant was not served notice. It is submitted that service was attempted at an old address, while the company had shifted to a new address, as reflected in ROC records. The service report still shows "unserved," and a screenshot of the same is filed.

It was further contended that due to summer vacation until 30.06.2024 and unavailability of counsel, no appearance could be made on 15.07.2024—the first hearing after notice. On that very day, the Court proceeded ex parte and passed the order. Upon learning of this, the non-applicant promptly filed I.A. No. 7505/2024 on 06.08.2024 under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act to oppose enforcement of the foreign award, followed by I.A. No. 8151/2024 on 27.08.2024 in support of the earlier application.

It was also submitted that there was no reason for the non applicant to not to appear before this Court, especially when a huge award to the tune of Rs.1,30,87,670/- has been passed against it.

It was further submitted that in the interest of justice, the order may be recalled, and an opportunity of hearing, on the objections already filed by the non-applicant, may be given to the non-applicant, otherwise grave prejudice and injustice would be caused to the non applicant.

Per contra, the Applicant submitted that the non-applicant has been served notice on their proper address, the screenshot of which, is also filed on record. It is also submitted that the notice was affected through the Court only, and the non applicant cannot be allowed to take advantage of the High Court‟s website, which is showing the notice as „unserved‟.

Lastly, it was submitted that following the order dated 15.07.2024, this Court directed the non-applicant on 06.08.2024 to deposit USD 1,53,972.58 within a week, based on the prevailing exchange rate. The non-applicant challenged this in SLP No. 19247 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 27.08.2024. Hence, no case for interference is made out.

The court observed that although the non-applicant was initially proceeded ex-parte, they later appeared, filed detailed objections on maintainability, and complied with the Court's direction to deposit the amount and provide security. Given the complex legal issues involved and in the interest of justice, it was held that the non-applicant should be heard before making the order dated 15.07.2024 absolute, albeit with appropriate costs for initial negligence.

It concluded that accordingly, I.A. No. 8276 of 2024 is allowed with costs of ₹25,000 to be paid by the non-applicant to the applicant. The ex-parte order dated 15.07.2024 is recalled only to the extent of declaring the non-applicant ex-parte. The rest of the order remains unaffected and shall be subject to the final decision on the objections filed by the non-applicant.

Case Title: M/S TRICON ENERGY UK LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. SANTOSH KOLI Vs M/S KRITI INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED

Case Number: AC No. 60 of 2024

Judgment Date: 16/06/2025

Shri Ashwin Shanker – Advocate assisted by Shri Madhav Lahoti - Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Manoj Munshi - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vikram Malviya and Shri Lucky Jain – Advocates for the non-applicant.

Click Here To Read/Download Order