Dismissed

Foxconn India Developer v. M/S.R.D.Associates

Madras HC21 Jul 2016OP/83/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an order regarding the appointment of a re-evaluation engineer, the Court dismissed the petition as the matter was at the trial stage. The Court held that no interference was called for at this stage to avoid delaying the arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with parties to bear their own costs.

Foxconn India Developer Vs M/S.R.D.Associates — Arbitration | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.07.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶6

O.P.No.83 of 2016

¶7

Foxconn India Developer Private Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory, P.Murugan, S/o.P.C.Pachaiyappan A11 and A12, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District – 602 105. ... Petitioner Vs. 1. M/s.R.D.Associates, Rep. By Proprietor, G.Diliban, EXOTICA, 6^th Floor, No.24, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶8

Mr.Justice T.Somasundaram, Judge, High Court of Madras (Retd.), Sole Arbitrator, No.1686, 15^th Street, H-Block, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondents

¶9

Petition under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration

¶10

and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 05.01.2016 made in I.A.No.01/2015 in Arbitration Case No.01/2014 passed by the second

¶11

respondent herein.

¶12

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Lourthu Paul Belson

¶14

For Respondent-1: Mr.C.Jagadish

¶15

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is, in effect, an appeal filed under Section

¶19

37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the "Act").

¶20

impugns the order dated 05.01.2016, passed by the learned Arbitrator in respect of the application preferred under

¶21

Section 17 of the Act.

¶22

filed under Section 17 of the Act, sought appointment of Technically Qualified Engineer to re-evaluate the work, which was subject matter of the contracts in issue.

¶23

dated 18.09.2007, while the other two contracts are dated 10.12.2007.

¶24

This aspect is not disputed by the learned

¶25

counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Arbitrator has stated in paragraph 11

¶27

of the impugned order that it is not disputed that the respondent/original claimant had handed over the

¶28

superstructure along with the site pertaining to contract

¶29

No.FIP3/07/Ext Sew/034, on 04.05.2009, and the construction pertaining to other contracts on 02.01.2009.

¶30

5.1. Learned Arbitrator has also concluded that

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ since more than six years have passed from the date of

¶32

¶33

taking over the possession of the property, no purpose would be served by appointing a Technically Qualified Engineer.

¶34

It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter is at the stage of trial, before the learned Arbitrator.

¶35

The record shows that the respondent/original claimant had triggered the arbitration process, by virtue of the notice dated 14.09.2009. Nearly seven years have passed since then. Parties are yet to conclude the arbitration process.

¶36

In these circumstances, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The impugned order is tenable. Any interference, at this stage, will delay conclusion of arbitration proceedings. The captioned petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶37

It is made clear that any observations made in

¶38

the order will not come in the way of the petitioner assailing the award finally, if such a need arises once arbitration proceedings are concluded.

¶39

Sd/R.S.A.J 21.07.2016

¶40

//Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2017

¶41

R.s/25.02.2017 COURT OFFICER

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.

Foxconn India Developer v. M/S.R.D.Associates

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Foxconn India Developer v. M/S.R.D.Associates

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

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs v Karthikeyan

M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. K. Yellaiah and Sons

M/S. Cholamandalam Investment Vs Mr. Vipin K

Lafarge Aggregates & Vs M/S.Apex Viswa Engg.Services

Oriental Cuisines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tidel Park Ltd.

Arun Excello Enterprises Vs