Allowed

R.Abbas v. M/s.Bharath Digital Vision

Madras HC24 Jan 2018OP/899/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court, in O.P. No. 899 of 2017, directed the appointment of Mr. K. Nazir Ahamed as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between petitioners and respondents arising from a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement, allowing the original petition.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. K. Nazir Ahamed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes, preferably within six months.

R.Abbas Vs M/s.Bharath Digital Vision — Arbitration | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 24.01.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P. No.899 of 2017

¶7

1 R.Abbas No.D-436, Akbar Street, Anna Nagar, Tennur, Trichy – 620 017 2 A.Geetha Rani 70- B Gandhi Street Keezha Ambikapuram Ariyamangalam Trichy 620004 3 P.Govinda prasad No.B-349/C Anna Nagar 1st Street Trichy- 620 021. 4 R.Kodi No.8 Natarajan Street K.K.Nagar Trichy- 620 021. 5 K.Syed Sulthan No.D-407 Bharathiyar Street Anna Nagar Tennur Trichy-620 017. 6 D.Zahir Hussain No.23/101D Ganthipuram Pettavaithalai Trichy-639 112. 7 A.M.Zainulabdeen No.5-4/1 Raja Rajan Street Tennur Anna Nagar Trichy-620 017. 8 V.Girija No.44A/1 Pattabiraman Street Tennur Trichy-17.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

9 R.Balasubramanian

¶11

No.39 Devanga Nesavalar Colony Nawab Thottam Woraiyur Trichy-3.

¶12

10 A.S.R.Vijayaragunathan

¶13

No.68 15A/1 Pakkupettai Woraiyur

¶14

Trichy- 3.

¶15

11 R.Jayaraman

¶16

No.39 Devanga Nesavalar Colony Nawab

¶17

Thottam Woraiyur Trichy-3.

¶18

12 A.S.R.Ramanathan

¶19

No.68 15A/1 Pakkupettai Woraiyur Trichy- 3.

¶20

13 V.Murugesan

¶21

1/139 Agraharam Thiruparaithurai

¶22

Trichy- 639 115.

¶23

14 B.Muruganathanm

¶24

No.67 Sivan Kovil Street 4th Street

¶25

Vayalur Road Trichy-17.

¶26

15 G.Senthilkumar

¶27

No.38 Elango Street Sangiliandapuram

¶28

Trichy-1.

¶29

Petitioners 1 to 7 and 9 to 15 represented

¶30

through their power of attorney Holder Ms.V.

¶31

Girija the 8th Petitioner herein. ... Petitioners

¶32

Vs.

¶33

1 M/s.Bharath Digital Vision

¶34

Limited Liability Partner(LLP) Having

¶35

Office at D-62 11th B Cross West Extension

¶36

AN.M.Building Thillainagar Trichy-18.

¶37

2 S.Raja

¶38

No.145 II Cross Behind VVV theatre Ponnagar Trichy-620 001.

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

¶41

3 G.Murali

¶42

No.9 John Thoppu Bharathiyar Street Town Station Road Trichy-620 002.

¶43

4 A Solomon Arockiadoss

¶44

No.4 LIC Nagar Employees Nagar 2nd Street Vignesh Nagar Extension Ellakudy Pappakurichi Kattur Trichy

¶45

Tamil Nadu-620 019. ... Respondents

¶46

¶47

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an Arbitrator in furtherance of Clause 32 of the Agreement of Limited Liability Partnership dated 27.11.2014 to adjudicate upon the disputes/differences between the Petitioners and the Respondent and direct the Respondents to pay the costs of this proceeding.

¶48

For Petitioners : Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan For Respondents :1. Mr.R.Thiyagarajan for R1,R3 and R4. 2. No appearance for R2. O R D E R

¶49

This petition is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, in furtherance of Clause 32 of Limited Liability Partnership Agreement

¶50

dated 27.11.2014.

¶51

2.Heard Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for R1,R3 and R4, R2 being unrepresented.

¶52

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶53

¶54

A perusal of the correspondence between the parties reveals that one Mr.R.Rajkumar, identified and named as the Arbitrator under Clause 32 of the Agreement, was appointed by the eighth petitioner on behalf of all petitioners on 03.08.2016. Pursuant thereto, the Arbitrator vide letter dated 29.12.2016 called upon the parties to appear before him on 08.01.2017 to take the matter up for hearing. The respondents appear to have expressed their objections to the appointment of Mr.Rajkumar as Arbitrator. The appointment was stated to be invalid, Mr.Rajkumar was removed from the position of Legal Adviser of R1 company with effect from 16.12.2016 a substitute appointed in his place. Strong exception was taken by Mr.RajKumar to the objections put forth by the respondents and leading to his recusal from the proceedings. The present petition is thus filed by the 15 petitioners seeking the appointment of an arbitrator by this Court.

¶55

4.Both learned counsel agree on the factum of disputes as between the parties. The parties also agree that an Arbitrator is liable to be appointed for resolution of the same in terms of clause 32 reading thus:

¶56

'32.Arbitration-

¶57

(1) All the matters not expressly provided in this agreement shall be decided by the consent of all the Partners

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶59

¶60

in writing. Failing that all disputes and questions about and in connection with the LLP under this Agreement arising between the Partners or between any one of them and the legal representative of the Partners or with the LLP at any time and from time to time, shall be settled by conciliation or by arbitration as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as if the parties to the dispute have consented in writing for determination of the same as aforesaid and the provisions of the said Act apply accordingly. In this regard, the partners of this MSO agree to refer their disputes to Mr.R.Rajkumar Advocate, Saroja Building, Colony main raod, Thillainagar, Trichy – 18 for conciliation or arbitration.

¶61

(2) If any question arises whether the dispute relates to formation, management or business of the LLP, the question shall be referred to the arbitrator, whose decision thereon shall be final.'

¶62

In the above circumstances, I am inclined to accept the prayer and appoint Mr.K.Nazir Ahamed, Retired District Judge, Trichy to act as sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties. The learned Arbitrator may, after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration and other incidental expenses.

¶63

Dr.Anita Sumanth,J.

¶64

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶65

¶66

6.The Original Petition is, accordingly, allowed, leaving the

¶67

parties to bear their own costs.

¶68

24.01.2018
msv
To
Mr.K.Nazir Ahamed,
Retired District Judge,
No.7, 4 th Cross, Banker's Colony,
Kumaran Nagar, Tiruchirappalli.
O.P. No.899 of 2017

¶69

http://www.judis.nic.in

R.Abbas v. M/s.Bharath Digital Vision

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Abbas v. M/s.Bharath Digital Vision

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

Mrs.Shankari Narasimha Reddy Vs M/s.Xs Real Properties

R.Selvaraj Vs The Deputy Chief Engineer

Mrs.Karpagam Vs Mr.G.R.K.Reddy

M/S. Ars Shelters India Vs Mrs N Manonmani

Imo Reliance Limited Vs Tamil Nadu Tennis Association

M/s.Sgs India Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/s.Vedanta Limited