Original Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking to stay an award was dismissed. The Court found evidence of prior notice and ruled that allegations of forgery must be raised in an appropriate forum.
Petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.07.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
Arb.OP.No.1170 of 2018
and
Application No.10044 of 2018
K.Nagarajan ...Petitioner
vs.
1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited,
Rep. by its Legal Manager,
D.Senthil Kumaran,
No.4/289, 1st Floor, Pycrofts road,
Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005.
2.Mr.C.M.Seetharaman,
Sole Arbitrator,
At No.90, Peters road,
New college shopping complex,
Royapettah,
Chennai -14.
3.C.Subramanian
4.S.Kumar
5.Kumar ...Respondents
2
PRAYER: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to stay the operation of the award 17.08.2016 passed in A.C.P.No.(EF) CMS 054 of 2012 by the second respondent herein pending disposal of the above OP.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.Anantha Krishnan O R D E R
The main grounds raised in this Original Petition is that no notice was served on the petitioner regarding the arbitral proceedings and his signature
has been forged by one A.Bilavendran and C.Subramanian for receiving loan.
shows that the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was sent to him with regard to the appointment of Arbitrator or
3
the arbitral proceedings. In view of the above specific submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court directed the second respondent, sole Arbitrator to send the entire records pertaining to the impugned Award dated 17.08.2016, bearing reference A.C.P.No.(EF) CMS 054/2012. Those records are now available with this court and a perusal of the
same shows that a pre-arbitration notice was sent to the parties on 29.07.2011. In fact, the petitioner who was arrayed as a fourth party therein has received the said notice. An acknowledgment card is also available in the
records. It is also seen that on 23.05.2012, paper publication was also
effected. Even then, the petitioner had not appeared before the Arbitration proceedings.
notice is found to be false based on the records. The another contention that the petitioner's signature has been forged is raised for the first time before this
court. It is for the petitioner to take recourse against the alleged breach of trust and misuse of his signature before appropriate forum.
4
N.SATHISH KUMAR , J.
mbi
Consequently, the connected Application is closed.
04.07.2019
mbi
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
Arb.OP.No.1170 of 2018
and
Application No.10044 of 2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was properly served with notice regarding the appointment of the arbitrator and the arbitral proceedings.
Whether the alleged forgery of the petitioner's signature is a ground to set aside the award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Nagarajan
M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited
C.M.Seetharaman
C.Subramanian
S.Kumar
N.SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
