Disposed

Mayaveeran v. M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Kerala HC15 Nov 2016WP(C)/30273/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order grants the petitioner permission to withdraw the writ petition challenging arbitral proceedings. The court notes the relevance of jurisdiction and appealability but does not issue substantive legal principles beyond granting leave to withdraw.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition granted with liberty to approach appropriate court or authority.

Mayaveeran Vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 30273 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

MAYAVEERAN,

¶8

AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VELLUSWAMY, AYINOORPARAMBA, KOTTOLI MAIN ROAD SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673 016.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., POST OFFICE AT GATEWAY BUILDING, APOLLO BUNDER, MUMBAI -400 001 AND HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, THADKKARAN CENTRE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 021.

¶13

3. A.SRINIVASAN (ARBITRATOR) GREEN ENCLAVE, NO.3/7, FLAT NO.4, FIRST FLOOR, ANNAI PARVATHI NAGAR, THORAIPAKKKAM, CHENNAI-600 097.

¶14

R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶18

W.P.(C)No.30273 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2016

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

-------------------

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the Arbitrator apparently under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On a perusal of Ext.P2, it is evident that the seat of arbitration is out of Kerala. Therefore, I do not think, petitioner is entitled to get any relief on the basis of Ext.P2 proceedings initiated from this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, an order passed under Section 17 is an appealable order under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.

¶23

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks, permission to withdraw the writ petition, permission is granted, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to approach the appropriate court of law or any statutory authority.

¶24

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶25

[ True copy]

¶26

rmm/18/11/2016

¶27

P.A. to Judge

Mayaveeran v. M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayaveeran v. M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bigeesh Varghese Vs the Daimler Finance Ltd.

N.Viswambharan Vs the Deputy Tahsildar

Kunjannamma N. Vs State of Kerala

Shakeena Mansoor Vs Passport Authority of India

P. Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs Deputy Tahasildar