Appeal dismissed against High Court order dismissing application to set aside ex-parte arbitration award. Court held it cannot re-appreciate evidence under Section 34/37 of 1996 Act. Appellants' failure to appear after proper notice justified ex-parte award.
Appeal dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2018
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
O.S.A.No.66 of 2014
1.V.Balasubramanian
2.B.Prasanth
.. Appellants/
Petitioner in OP.No.857/13
vs
1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
rep. by its Authorized representative Having their office at No.123, Angappa Naicken Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.Radha.S
3.V.Senthilkumar, Advocate/Sole Arbitrator, D.No.90, Peters Road, New College Shopping Complex,
Royapettah.
.. Respondents/
Respondents in OP No.857 of 2013
Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent r/w. 37 of Arbitration & conciliation Act against the order dated 28.11.2013 passed in O.P.No.857 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
OP.No.857 OF 2013: Petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award in ACP(EF) No.260/2013 dated 23.07.2013.
For Appellants .. Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj
For Respondents .. Mr.V.Santhanam for M/s.K.V.Aanantha Krushnan for respondent No.1
Mr.A.Kripakaran for respondent No.2
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Ms.Indira Banerjee, Chief Justice)
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act" is against a judgment and order dated 28th November 2013, dismissing an application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the award in ACP (EF) No.260 of 2013 dated 23rd July 2013 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Mr.Senthilkumar V, an Advocate.
Mr.Shriram (Regional Manager) from Mylapore Branch of M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited for non-payment of the loan instalments. He apparently did nothing inspite of phone calls. Be that as it may, the first appellant could not have claimed an adjournment of the arbitration proceedings as a matter of right. It was for the appellants to appear before the Arbitrator and make their submissions.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-iv)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj Advocate, S.R.No. 2454 +1cc to M/s.K.V.Aanantha Krushnan Advocate, S.R.No. 2632 +1cc to Mr.V.S.SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate, S.R.No.2645
O.S.A.No.66 of 2014
TM(CO) TR(21/03/2018)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a High Court can re-appreciate evidence or decide if a cheque was encashed when deciding an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the dismissal of an ap
Whether the appellants were entitled to the relief of setting aside the award on the ground of inability to present their case before the learned Arbitrator given their admitted failure to appear desp
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Bench order dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte award by the sole arbitrator.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
1.V.Balasubramanian
2.B.Prasanth
1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
2.Radha.S
3.V.Senthilkumar
INDIRA BANERJEE
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
