Disposed

M/s/Solar Designs Private Limited v. Dy.General Manager(Civil)

Madras HC9 Jul 2019OP/178/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act to appoint an arbitrator, the court held that since both parties had mutually appointed arbitrators, the petition was devoid of utility. The court directed arbitrators to name a third arbitrator and proceed, closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Original petition closed; no costs; arbitrators directed to name a third arbitrator and proceed with the matter.

M/s/Solar Designs Private Limited Vs Dy.General Manager(Civil) — Arbitration | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 09.07.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶6

O.P. No.178 of 2019 M/s.Solar Designs Pvt. Ltd., No.1, A Wing, 3^rd Floor, Parsn Manere, 602, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 006. Rep by its Authorised Signatory Mr.A.A.K. Aapath Sakaayem .. Petitioner -vsDy. General Manager (Civil), Kamarajar Port Ltd., 2^nd Floor, (North Wing) and 3^rd Floor, Jawahar Building, 17 Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondent

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator as per clause 25.3 of the agreement dated 08.11.2016 between the parties.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan For Respondent : Mr.Manoj Menon for M/s.Menon, Karthik, Mukundan & Neelakantan

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This petition seeks to appoint an arbitrator as per Clause 25.3

¶11

of the agreement dated 08.11.2016 between the parties.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

The petitioner had sought for an appointment of an arbitrator as per Clause 25.3 of the agreement dated 08.11.2016 between the parties.

¶15

The respondent/Kamarajar Port Limited had already appointed one Dr.R.Rajagopalan, I.P.S. (Retd.) as their arbitrator. Though there was a doubt expressed by the petitioner as to whether the same arbitrator was appointed earlier by the respondent, it is stated that the said arbitrator had been nominated only once and he is qualified to continue as the arbitrator.

¶16

On the side of the petitioner also, they have appointed one

¶17

Mr.N.Pitchaimoorthi as arbitrator and the same was communicated to the respondent. Now, both the counsels agreed that the respective arbitrators appointed by them can continue, as mutually they have been appointed by the parties.

¶18

It is open to the arbitrators already appointed to name a third arbitrator and proceed with the matter.

¶19

Accordingly, the Original Petition is closed. No costs.

¶20

09.07.2019

¶21

rsi

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

rsi

O.P. No.178 of 2019

09.07.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s/Solar Designs Private Limited v. Dy.General Manager(Civil)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s/Solar Designs Private Limited v. Dy.General Manager(Civil)

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

Hdb Financial Services Ltd. Vs Mr.Venugopal R S/O.Raghavan Nair

M/S.Hi-Tech Rock Products and Aggregate Ltd. Vs Mr.Bangari Hanumanthu S/O.Somappa

B.Suresh Vs the Official Assignee

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. Vs a.Karthik

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Om Prakash Singh S/O.Bed Singh

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Prathmesh Travels Prop Sandeep Ramdas Ahirrao