M.R.Prem Kumar v. Murali Gopalakrishnan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of two pending applications regarding a construction dispute and potential arbitration. The court closed the matters based on a compromise memorandum executed by all parties, which recorded a payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- by the respondents.
What did the court decide?
Applications closed in terms of the memorandum of compromise dated 24.03.2018; respondents to pay Rs. 4,50,000/-.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
O.A.No.958 of 2016 and A.No. 5612 of 2016 In the matter of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 And In the matter of Certain disputes Between M/s. Sthira Constructions And Mr.Murali Gopalakrishnan Mrs.P.S.Alamelu in respect of the Construction Agreement Dated 12.12.2014.
Mr.M.R.J.Prem Kumar Proprietor of M/s. Sthira Constructions, No.7/4, 1st Cross Street, 1st Floor, Seethammal Colony Extn, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... Applicant/Applicant Vs
- Mr.Murali Gopalakrishnan S/o. late P.S.Gopalakrishnan Flat No.3A, Milestone Apartments, No.14, Sriram Nagar South Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
- Mrs.P.S.Alamelu W/o. Late P.S.Gopalakrishnan Flat No.3A, Milestone Apartments, No.14, Sriram Nagar South Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. ... Respondents/Respondents
O.A.No.958 of 2016:
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, servants, men or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ anyone claiming under or through them and/or authorized by them from in any manner completing the construction activities till such time the construction work so far done
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim injunction and commissioner appointment applications are maintainable without preferential arbitration.
Whether the controversy necessitated court intervention given the parties' subsequent compromise.
How the court should dispose of pending applications upon the submission and acceptance of a compromise memorandum.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
M/s. Sthira Constructions
- respondent
Mr. Murali Gopalakrishnan
- respondent
Mrs. P.S. Alamelu
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court