Allowed

G.v.Manivannan v. M/S.Shriram City Union

Madras HC25 Feb 2020OP/431/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an arbitration award and quashed the attached salary proceeds because the arbitrator issued a publication notice based on an incorrect and incomplete petitioner address, violating due process. The error perturbed the petitioner's right to receive notice regarding the arbitration proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The award relating to the petitioner set aside; attachment of salary raised; respondents to refund amounts received within four weeks.

G.v.Manivannan Vs M/S.Shriram City Union — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.No.431 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

O.P.No.431 of 2014
G.V.Manivannan ... Petitione
Vs
1.M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd
Rep by its Authorised Signatory
Having their office at
No.123, Angappan Naicket Street,
Chennai – 600 001.
2.Mr.N.M.Karthikeyan,
3.Mr.S.Ragunathan ... Respondents
Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award passed by the 2 nd respondent
dated 24.02.2012.

¶7

1/5

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

O.P.No.431 of 2014

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jaya Prakash

¶11

For Respondent 1 : Ms.Janani Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan

¶12

O R D E R The Guarantor / 2nd respondent is the petitioner before this Court challenging the award dated 24.02.2012 passed by the arbitral Tribunal. The challenge to the award was on the ground that the address of the petitioner has been wrongly given and made to appear as if the petitioner has deliberately not received the notice. Infact, one notice which has been sent to the petitioner was returned with an endorsement "insufficient address". On the basis of this return the learned arbitrator has proceeded to issue a paper publication and consequently passed an award directing the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent herein to repay a sum of Rs.1,91,324/together with future interest at 36 % p.a. from 05.10.2012 to 25.02.2012 and thereafter, at 18 % p.a.

¶13

2/5

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

O.P.No.431 of 2014

¶16

After hearing the parties, this Court has perused the records

¶17

received from the Arbitrator. It is seen that the petitioner herein is a permanent resident of Ayyanavaram, Chennai 23. However, the notice has all been addressed to Chennai 56. Infact an incomplete address has been

¶18

given in the case of the petitioner herein. The address is given as follows:

¶19

“Mr.G.V.Manivannan, S/O Varadharajan, O.No.6, N.No.18,

¶20

Veerasamy 2^nd St., Chennai – 600 056.”

¶21

Considering the fact that there has been a manipulation with

¶22

reference to the address, the award in so far as it relates to the 2nd respondent / petitioner herein has to be set aside. It is reported that, pursuant to the award the 1st respondent herein has filed an Execution Petition and attached the salary of the petitioner. It is need less to state that

¶23

the attachment shall stand raised and the 1st respondent Finance Company shall refund the amounts so far received by them pursuant to the order in E.P.No.2007 of 2012 within a period of four weeks.

¶24

3/5

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

O.P.No.431 of 2014

¶27

The Original Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to

¶28

costs.

¶29

25.02.2020
kan
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non-speaking order

¶30

4/5

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

O.P.No.431 of 2014

P.T.ASHA, J.,

kan

O.P.No.431 of 2014
25.02.2020

¶36

5/5

¶37

http://www.judis.nic.in

G.v.Manivannan v. M/S.Shriram City Union

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.Manivannan 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

Infogix Inc., Vs Megasoft Limited

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Gammon India Ltd.

The Commissioner Vs M/s. Gammon India Ltd.

Mrs.Sowmiya Suresh Vs Ms.Shriram City Union

Sri Ganga Transport Vs Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

M.a.K.Earth Movers Vs L and T Finance Limited