Dismissed

Basavalngappa Talikoti v. M/S.Indusind Bank Limited

Madras HC9 Jul 2019OP/121/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these original petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging ex-parte awards, the High Court held that notices were properly served despite refusal to cooperate. It found the parties initially appeared and later remained absent. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

Basavalngappa Talikoti Vs M/S.Indusind Bank Limited — Arbitration | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.07.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

O.P. Nos.121, 122, 123, 124 & 125 of 2013

¶7

1.Basavalingappa Talikoti
2.Mr.Ashok Kashiram ... Petitioners in all O.Ps
Vs.
1.M/s.Indusind Bank Limited
rep.by Mr.Balavenkata Giri,
Having office at No.116,
G.N.Chetty Road, T.nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
2.Mr.S.K.Srinivasan
Sole Arbitrator ... Respondents in all O.Ps

¶8

Common Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the Ex-awards passed by 2^nd respondent dated 16.03.2010 in the Arbitration claim petition Nos.KJJA00261 of 2002, KJJA00261 of 2002, KJJA00262 of 2002, KJJA00263 of 2002 & KJJA00264 of 2002.

¶9

For Petitioners : Ms.P.Pooja for M/s.PVS.Giridhar & Sai Associates (in all W.Ps) For Respondents : Mr.K.Moorthy for R1 (in all W.Ps)

¶10

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶11

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The awards dated 16.03.2010 have been put to challenge in the

¶14

present Original Petitions. Main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that without giving any opportunity, an ex-parte award has been

¶15

passed and there is no documents to substantiate the claim of the

¶16

claimant/1^st respondent.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents.

¶18

First of all, the contention that an opportunity has not been given

¶19

to the petitioners cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the notices have not been served properly.

¶20

On perusal of the records, it is categorically found that various notices have been served to the petitioners/respondents at the earlier stage of original proceedings. Despite refusal of notices by the respondents, they had entered appearance through counsel and filed their counter affidavit, when the matter was in initial stage. Thereafter they did not prosecute their case inspite of several notices and the matter has been proceeded on the basis of evidences adduced by the claimant/1^st

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

respondent herein. The Arbitrator, considering learned Arbitrator has passed the ex-parte award based on the documents.

¶24

Hence, the learned Arbitrator followed appropriate procedure in

¶25

sending notices as contemplated under Act and the notices have also been
served and the parties have appeared before the learned Arbitrator and
subsequently remained absent and as such, the Awards cannot be set aside
on the ground that no opportunity is given during the original proceedings
and I do not find any material to interfere with the Awards passed by the
learned Arbitrator.
Accordingly, these Original Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
09.07.2019
sk
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking Order/ Non-speaking Order

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.

¶29

¶30

O.P. Nos.121, 122, 123, 124 & 125 of 2013
09.07.2019

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

Basavalngappa Talikoti v. M/S.Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavalngappa Talikoti v. M/S.Indusind Bank Limited

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

Naresh Purushotham Vs Tvs Finance & Services Ltd.

A.Chinnadurai Vs M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

P.S.Thiyagarajan Vs Surendra Kumar Ranka

S.Vijayakumar Vs v.Paul Das

S.K.Ramkumar Vs Union of India

V.Visvanathan Vs M/S.Shriram City Union