Dismissed

V.Visvanathan v. M/S.Shriram City Union

Madras HC9 Jul 2019OP/644/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging an arbitral award of 2011 by alleging ex-parte proceedings, the High Court found that the arbitration claimant had properly served notices, including a pre-arbitration notice. The Court held that the award could not be set aside as the arbitrator followed appropriate procedure and the petitioners had not contested the claim despite notified summons. The petition was dismi

What did the court decide?

The petition to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

V.Visvanathan Vs M/S.Shriram City Union — 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. No. 644 of 2013
1.V.Visvanathan
2.Pyaralal
3.N.Krishnan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd,
rep.by its Authorized
representative Ms.Meenakshi
Having their office at No.12,
Ramaswamy Street, T.Nagar,
Chennai-600 017.
2.The Sole Arbitrator
C.A.Ravichadiran, Advocate ... Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to setaside the award dated 25.08.2011 passed by the second respondent disputes raised by the respondent against the petitioners in A.C.P.NO(EF/CAR) 18 of 2011.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Ganesh Babu For Respondent : Mr.A.Janani for M/s.K.V.Anatha Krishnan for R1

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The Award dated 25.08.2011 has been put to challenge in the present Original Petition. Main contention of the petitioners before this Court is that without giving any opportunity, an ex-parte award has been passed and

¶13

there is no documents to substantiate the claim of the claimant/1^st

¶14

respondent.

¶15

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

¶16

On perusal of the records, it is categorically found that pre-

¶17

arbitration notice dated 16.03.2010 has been served on the parties. Subsequently, the summons/notices were also issued by the Arbitrator. Despite notice, the petitioners herein had not contested. The learned Arbitrator by taking into account all the documents adduced by the claimant, proceeded further and passed an award. Therefore it is too late for the petitioners to contend that no opportunity has been given and the learned Arbitrator has proceeded ex-parte Award. Such contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that Pre-Arbitration notice has not been properly served.

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

In view of the reasons assigned above, the Awards cannot be set

¶21

aside on the ground that no opportunity is given during the original proceedings. Further, the learned Arbitrator has also followed appropriate procedure in sending notices as contemplated under the Arbitration Act,

¶22

hence I do not find any ground to interfere with the Awards passed by the

¶23

learned Arbitrator.
Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.
09.07.2019
sk
Index : Yes/ No
Internet : Yes/ No
Speaking Order/ Non-speaking Order

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

N.SATHISH KUMAR.,J.

O.P. No. 644 of 2013

09.07.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Visvanathan v. M/S.Shriram City Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Visvanathan v. M/S.Shriram City Union

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

Basavalngappa Talikoti Vs M/S.Indusind Bank Limited