Allowed

R.Kalyanaraman v. M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

Madras HC20 Jul 2017OP/669/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside an award because the notice under the Act was not served on the petitioner. Consequently, the attached salary was refunded, and connected proceedings were closed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the attached salary was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner; no costs were awarded; connected notice proceedings were closed.

R.Kalyanaraman Vs M/S.Shriram City Union Finance — Arbitration | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 20.07.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P.No. 669 of 2015

¶7

R. Kalyanaraman ..Petitioner Vs

¶8

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., represented by its Authorised representative No.123, Angappan Naicken Street, Chennai 600 001.

¶9

Mr. V. Senthil Kumar, Sole Arbitrator/Advocate, No.90, Peters Road, New College Shopping Complex, Roypettah, Chennai 600 014.

¶10

Mr.T. Shiva Kumar, 4. Mr. P.Sivaji Rao 5. G. Subha Shini .. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 to set aside the award passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 26.08.2013 and direct the respondents to pay the costs of the petition.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.C. Premkumar For Respondents : Mr.Amalraj S. Penikilapatti

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Learned counsel Mr.Amalraj S. Penikilapatti appearing for the

¶15

respondent would submit that upon verification of the records, it transpires that

¶16

notice relating to proceedings for arbitration and demand of the outstanding

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

dues have not infact, been served on the petitioner. In this view of the matter, he concedes that the present petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is liable to be allowed.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid submission, this petition is ordered.

¶21

Learned counsel Mr. Premkumar appearing for the petitioner would state that the salary of the petitioner is under attachment and stands deposited to the credit of the execution petition pursuant to order dated 7.1.2015 in

¶22

E.P.No.1372 of 2014 passed by the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶23

In the light of the present order, the salary witheld is ordered to be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected A.No.5867 of 2015 is closed.

¶24

20.07.2017
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
msr
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
msr

¶25

O.P.No. 669 of 2015

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

20.07.2017

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Kalyanaraman v. M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kalyanaraman v. M/S.Shriram City Union Finance

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.Cotton House Vs New Cotton House

M/S.Zebronics India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Mr.Lalesh Kumar Jain

Mr.Rajan K.R. Vs M/s. Featherlite Estates

M/s.Cholamandalam Investment Vs Rahul Zodape

M/s.Updater Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs M/s.Toll (India)Logistics Pvt.

Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Vs M/s.Pavalam Theatre