Allowed

R.Naresh Giridharan v. G.E.Money Financial Service

Madras HC10 Dec 2018OP/519/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an original petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an arbitral award. The court noted that the petitioner had paid the full amount demanded for finality, and as no representation appeared from the respondents, the petition was allowed. No hearing was held.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition allowed to set aside the arbitral award.

R.Naresh Giridharan Vs G.E.Money Financial Service — Arbitration | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.12.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶6

O.P. No. 519 of 2012
R.Naresh Giridharan
No.9, First Street, Habbibullah Road
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.G.E.Money Financial Service Pvt. Ltd.
Having their Registered Office
At Nos.401 & 402, 4 th Floor
Aggarwal Millenium Tower
E-1, 2, 3 Nethaji Subash Place
Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034.
2.SH Sachin Das
Sole Arbitrator & Advocate
407, New Lawyers Chambers
Bhagawan Das Road
Supreme Court, New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer :: Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to set aside the arbitral award in Arbitration case No.LA-GE-ARBOCT 10 2676 of 20 dated 20-3-12 passed by the Second Respondent Arbitrator and awarding the cost of this Original Petition.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel For Mr.R.Sunil Kumar For Respondents : No appearance

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

Though notice has been served on the Respondents, there is no representation for the Respondents.

¶13

2.It is represented that the personal loan was availed by the Petitioner, and

¶14

the failure to pay the amount, resulted in initiation of arbitration proceedings, in which an award was passed against the Petitioner herein, who was the Respondent before the Arbitrator.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the outstanding amount was only Rs.1,43,505/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty Three Thousand and Five Hundred and Five Only) as on 19.11.2009 and that the First Respondent herein has given a letter dated 27.06.2010 that if an amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) is paid towards the amount payable, the entire arbitration proceedings would attain its finality and that no legal proceedings would be initiated against the Petitioner and that the case initiated against the Petitioner would be withdrawn.

¶16

Even though, the amount has been paid and that the same has been encashed, the proceedings are still pending against the Petitioner.

¶17

4.It is further brought to the notice of this Court that it is very clear from

¶18

page Nos.10 to 17 that several payments have been made and that a sum of Rs.62,000/- (Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Only) has been paid, which is over and

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

above the amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand Only) demanded by the

¶22

Respondents herein.

¶23

5.Taking note of the fact that there is no representation for the Respondents

¶24

and accepting the contention of the Petitioner, this Original Petition stands allowed.

¶25

10.12.2018
maya
Index : Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking /Non-speaking order

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.

¶29

maya

¶30

O.P. No. 519 of 2012

¶31

Dated : 10.12.2018

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Naresh Giridharan v. G.E.Money Financial Service

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Naresh Giridharan v. G.E.Money Financial Service

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

The Tamilnadustate Transport Vs Thanigaimurugan

M/S.Tci Distribution Centers Vs the Official Liquidator

Indian Institute of Logistics Vs B.Vanitha

K.Sivakumar Vs M/S.Sundaram Finance Limited

K.Chandrasekaran Vs Tamil Nadu Tourism Development

K.Vijay Kumar Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance