Partly allowed

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. R.Manukumar

Madras HC20 Sept 2016OSA/134/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the original side appeal in limited scope, setting aside specific directions from the impugned order that declined security under the Arbitration Act. The court noted an award was subsequently passed in the appellant's favor and no prejudice would result from the interim order observations.

What did the court decide?

The directions related to future claims were set aside. The appeal allowed to that extent.

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs R.Manukumar — Arbitration | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.09.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

O.S.A.No.134 of 2012

¶7

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., No.3, Dass India Towers, 2^nd Floor, 2^nd Line Beach, Chennai 600 001. rep. by its Assistant Manager (Legal) K.Manjula Balaji ... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

2.Jyothi Rani ... Respondents

¶10

Appeal filed under Order 36 Rule 9 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 14.03.2012 passed in A.No.1042 of 2012 in A.No.2536 of 2011.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.E.O.M.Prakash

¶12

For Respondents : Mrs.Chithirai Gomathy for Mr.R.N.Amarnath for R.1 and R.2

¶13

(Judgement of the Court was delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

The appeal arises from the impugned order dated 14.03.2012 dismissing the applications filed by the appellant/bank under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking security.

¶15

The transaction in question relates to a construction of Crane and it is the case of the appellant that some part payments towards instalments have not been made, though

¶16

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

¶17

undisputedly, substantial payments have been made. The security sought was for a sum of Rs.3,28,215.30. This prayer has been declined by the impugned order.

¶18

We do not consider it necessary to deal with various aspects forming subject matter of the adjudication by the learned Single Judge, since we are informed that subsequently, award has been passed in favour of the appellant. We are unable to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is any reason to apprehend that the observation made in the impugned order would in any manner affect the execution proceedings qua the award, since the impugned order is passed on a prima facie view of the matter at an interlocutory stage. It is akin to say that the observation made in an interim injunction application would prejudice the suit – something not palatable.

¶19

We are thus of the view that it is for the respective parties to take recourse to legal remedies as are available to them, keeping in mind the fact that an award already stands passed in favour of the appellant.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the apprehension arises from the direction passed in the impugned order. The second direction relates to any claim to be made by the respondent against the bank within six months from the date of the order, but we are informed that the respondent has not claimed any amount.

¶21

Insofar as the third and fifth directions are concerned, keeping in mind the nature of the proceedings in seizin before the learned Single Judge, no such direction could be issued.

¶22

Those directions are thus set aside.

¶23

The Original Side appeal is allowed to the aforesaid limited extent, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

ksr

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side Section, High Court, Madras.

¶32

+1cc to Mr.R.N.Amarnath, Advocate, S.R.No.53548 +2cc's to Mr.Ramalingam & Associates, S.R.No.53580

¶33

O.S.A.No.134 of 2012
CTR(CO)
CA(29/09/2016)

¶34

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

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. R.Manukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. R.Manukumar

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

N.Sathianatha and Sons(P)Ltd., Vs N.Swaminathan,(Deceased)

N.Sathianathan and Sons(P)Ltd. Vs Asa John Divianathan

Mr.Murugeson, Vs M/S.Absa Bank Ltd, Singapore

Coimbatore Consumer Cause Vs State of Tamilnadu

M/S Indusind Bank Ltd. Vs Joseph Rajan Fernandes

M/S Ashoka Associates Vs S.Murugan