Disposed

K.Vara Prasad v. M/S.Citicorp Finance (India)

Madras HC28 Sept 2020OP/318/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside an award, the court disposed of the petition upon recording a settlement between the parties. The impugned award is to be substituted by the compromise, subject to revival upon triggering of default clauses.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition was dismissed as settled; the impugned award stands substituted by the Joint Memo of Compromise dated 15.09.2020.

K.Vara Prasad Vs M/S.Citicorp Finance (India) — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 28.09.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

O.P.No.318 of 2014
1. Mr.K.Vara Prasad,
S/o.Mr.K.Ramarao,
Plot No.92, Madhava Nagar,
Biramuliguda, Pst-Lal Bahadur,
Secunderabad, Hyderabad-500 963.
2. Mrs.K.Vijayalaxmi,
Plot No.92, Madhava Nagar,
Karmanghat, LB Nagar,
Secunderabad-500 059.
... Petitioners
-Vs.-
1. M/s.Citicorp Finance (India) Limited,
Rep. by its Manager-Legal,
1 st Floor, Angson Centre,
153, Greams Road, Near Thousand Lights,
Chennai-600 006.
2. Mr.K.S.Gowthaman,
Sole Arbitrator,
No.224-B, 4 th Cross Street,
Natesa Nagar, Virugambakkam,
Chennai-600 092.
(R2 deleted in and by this order)

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

This Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in 1/9

¶10

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶11

Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 17.03.2014 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Claim Petition No.KSG/CCFIL/2/2008 and allow the petition with exemplary cost.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Venkatavarathan

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vasudevan

¶14

***
ORDER

¶15

Mr.R.Venkatavarathan, learned counsel on record for the two

¶16

petitioners and Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel on record for the contesting

¶17

first respondent are before this virtual Court in a web hearing on a video conferencing platform.

¶18

To be noted, sole Arbitrator, who constituted the Arbitral Tribunal

¶19

and made the impugned award, has been arrayed as second respondent, but

¶20

second respondent will now stand deleted in and by this order.

¶21

Captioned Original Petition has been listed under the caption 'FOR

¶22

REPORTING SETTLEMENT' today.

¶23

Aforementioned two learned counsel on record make a common

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in 2/9

¶25

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶26

submission in unison that the matter has been settled between the two petitioners and the sole respondent (now) and they have reduced the terms of Compromise to a 'Joint Memo of Compromise dated 15.09.2020' [hereinafter 'said Jt.MOC' for the sake of clarity and convenience].

¶27

Both learned counsel make two common requests in unison and they are as follows:

¶28

a. Personal presence of the parties may please be dispensed with
owing to virtual hearing;
b. Said Jt.MOC has been email filed, a hard copy of the same has
been placed before this virtual Court, necessary Court fee has
also been paid and therefore, the same may be recorded.

¶29

In the light of the trajectory the matter has taken, considering the nature of the matter, aforesaid two requests are acceded to.

¶30

Both learned counsel submit in unison that on recording the said

¶31

Jt.MOC, impugned award dated 17.03.2014 will stand substituted by Jt.MOC.

¶32

However, in the light of Clause 4 of said Jt.MOC, impugned award will stand

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in 3/9

¶34

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶35

revived in place of Jt.MOC, if the default clause kicks in and starts operating.

¶36

Scanned copy of said Jt.MOC is as follows:

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in 4/9

¶38

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in 5/9

¶40

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in 6/9

¶42

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in 7/9

¶44

O.P.No.318 of 2014

¶45

Aforementioned Jt.MOC shall form part of the order. This Court is

¶46

informed by both the learned counsel that the sole respondent has launched execution by way of EP.No.192 of 2017 in Rengareddy District Court in State of Telangana, but counsel for sole respondent undertakes to have the same

¶47

withdrawn in the light of this Jt.MOC being recorded.

¶48

OP disposed of as settled on the aforementioned terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.
28.09.2020
Speaking order: Yes/No
Index: Yes / No
kmi

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in 8/9

O.P.No.318 of 2014

M.SUNDAR, J.

kmi

O.P.No.318 of 2014

28.09.2020

http://www.judis.nic.in 9/9

K.Vara Prasad v. M/S.Citicorp Finance (India)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vara Prasad v. M/S.Citicorp Finance (India)

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

The Official Liquidator, as the liquidator of M/s.Erode Rana Textiles Processors Private Limited, Vs M/s. International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

The Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/s.Sarveswara Benefit Fund Limited (In Prov. Liqn.) Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator, as the liquidator of G.N.S.Nidhi Limited(In Liquidation) Vs Nil

Mr.T.Rajasekar Vs M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd.

P.Kothai Vs Shriram Transport Finance

M/s. Arun Kumar Deedwania, Engineers and Builders, Vs M/s. Union of India, Rep.by its Cheif Engineer