Disposed

M/s.Madhav Structural v. M/s.India Cements Capital

Madras HC17 Sept 2020OP/707/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the parties reached a settlement. The court accepted counsel's request to dispose of the petition by holding that the settlement memorandum substitutes the impugned arbitral award.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of by substituting the settlement memorandum for the impugned arbitral award; no order as to costs.

M/s.Madhav Structural Vs M/s.India Cements Capital — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED:17.09.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶7

1.M/s.Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd.,

¶8

represented by its Director

¶9

Laxman Mahadev Chavan

¶10

having its registered office at 29/1, Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶11

M/s. Yogesh Construction P.Ltd.

¶12

Represented by its Director Yoyesh R.Chavan

¶13

having its registered office at

¶14

29/1. Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶15

3.Mr.Laxman Mahadev Chavan

¶16

Adult Mumbai Indian Inhabitant

¶17

having address at

¶18

29/1. Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶19

Mr.Ramesh Mahadev Chavan

¶20

Adult Mumbai Indian Inhabitant having address at

¶21

29/1. Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶22

Mr.Arun Mahadev Chavan

¶23

Adult Mumbai Indian Inhabitant having address at

¶24

29/1. Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

1/13

¶27

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶28

JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶29

Mr.Ram Mahadev Chavan Adult Mumbai Indian Inhabitant having address at 29/1. Juhu Supreme Shopping Centre JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049

¶30

... Petitioners

¶31

Vs.

¶32

M/s.India Cements Capital Ltd., having its registered Office at Dhun Building 3^rd and 4^th Floor, 827, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002 ... Respondent

¶33

Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the impugned award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator dated 27.01.2016 in proceedings bearing ACP No.7 of 2008 and to order costs of the present petition.

¶34

For Petitioners : Ms.Deepika Murali For Respondent : Mr.Aravind Subramaniam ORDER

¶35

Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel on record for six petitioners and

¶36

Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned counsel for sole respondent are before me in this web-hearing on a video-conferencing platform.

¶37

2.Captioned Original Petition is listed under the cause list caption 'FOR

¶38

REPORTING SETTLMENT', pursuant to earlier proceedings dated

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

2/13

¶41

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶42

03.08.2020, 24.08.2020 and 07.09.2020, which read as follows:

¶43

' Proceedings dated 03.08.2020

¶44

'Ms.Deepika Murali, learned counsel for six petitioners and Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned counsel for sole respondent are before me in this web-hearing on a video-conferencing platform.

¶45

2.Adverting to earlier proceedings dated 25.02.2020 made by Hon'ble Predecessor Judge, both the learned counsel submit that the matter is heading for settlement, but both learned counsel request for some time. At request, adjourned by three weeks.

¶46

List under the caption 'FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT' on 24.08.2020.'

¶47

' Proceedings dated 24.08.2020

¶48

Mr.Aravind Subramaniam, learned counsel for sole respondent, adverting to earlier proceedings dated 03.08.2020 submits that settlement is in the anvil and requests for a week's time.

¶49

List under the same caption on 07.09.2020. '

¶50

'Proceedings dated 07.09.2020

¶51

It is submitted by both sides that the settlement has been concluded, but learned counsel on both sides seek ten days time to file Memorandum of Compromise in the Registry and bring it on Board.

¶52

List under the same caption on 17.09.2020.'

¶53

Today, aforementioned two learned counsel on record submit that the

¶54

six petitioners and the sole respondent have arrived at a settlement and have

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

3/13

¶57

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶58

reduced the same into writing by way of a document in the name and style

¶59

'MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT dated 19.08.2020' (hereinafter 'said

¶60

settlement memorandum' for the sake of convenience and clarity).

¶61

Scanned reproduction of said settlement memorandum is as follows:

¶62

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶63

4/13

¶64

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶65

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶66

5/13

¶67

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶68

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶69

6/13

¶70

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶71

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶72

7/13

¶73

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶74

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶75

8/13

¶76

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶77

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶78

9/13

¶79

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶80

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶81

10/13

¶82

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶83

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶84

11/13

¶85

O.P.No.707 of 2016

¶86

Aforementioned learned counsel on record on both sides make a

¶87

request that captioned OP can be disposed of by holding that said settlement memorandum will substitute the impugned arbitral award dated 27.01.2016. In other words, instead of impugned award dated 27.01.2016, said settlement memorandum will operate as the award between the parties, is the common say of both sides. Considering that this is a virtual hearing, both sides make a joint

¶88

request for dispensing with the presence of the parties and this request is

¶89

acceded to.

¶90

SETTLEMENT dated 19.08.2020 (scanned copy reproduced supra) shall substitute / replace impugned award dated 27.01.2016 made in ACP No.7 of 2008;

¶91

b) On and from today, said settlement memorandum will

¶92

govern the parties instead of impugned award dated 27.01.2016.

¶93

c) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶94

gpa

¶95

http://www.judis.nic.in

12/13

O.P.No.707 of 2016

M.SUNDAR.J.,

gpa

O.P.No.707 of 2016
17.09.2020

¶101

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶102

13/13

M/s.Madhav Structural v. M/s.India Cements Capital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Madhav Structural v. M/s.India Cements Capital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator, as the Liquidator of M/s.Southern Shelters Limited (Provisional Liqn.) Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator as the Liquidator of M/s.The Purasawalkam Hindu Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Ltd., Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator, M/s.Muruganathan Mills Limited (In Liquidation) Vs Nil

The Board of Trustees of the Vs M/S.X-Press Container Line(Uk)

The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of M/s.Sree Akilandeswari Mills Private Limited (In Liquidation Vs Nil

The Official Liquidator, as the Liquidator of M/s.Tamil Nadu Magnesium and Marine Chemicals Limited Vs Nil