Allowed

C.Sumathi, v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Madras HC10 Feb 2020OP/764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside two arbitration awards dated 09.05.2017, which were printed on stamp paper dated 18.09.2017, alleging violation of the one-year time limit under Section 29(A)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by consent of parties and directed remand.

What did the court decide?

The awards dated 09.05.2017 are set aside and the Original Petitions are allowed. The matter is remanded to the newly agreed sole arbitrator, Mr N Santosh Nagarajan, to commence proceedings from recor

C.Sumathi, Vs M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10.02.2020

¶4

C O R A M

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶7

C.Sumathi .. Petitioner in both O.Ps

¶8

-Vs.-

¶9

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Represented by its Authorised Representative, Having their Office at SKT Towers, 1st Floor, No.3A/2, M.B.T.Towers, Navalpur, Ranipet - 632 404 ...Respondent in both O.Ps.

¶10

Original Petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set side the award dated 09.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 passed in A.C.P.No.(EF/CAR/85/2016) and A.C.P.No.(EF/CAR/84/2016) respectively.

¶11

For petitioner ... Mr.Sharath Chandran in both O.Ps For Respondent in both O.Ps ... Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan

¶12

COMMON ORDER

¶13

The respondent before the arbitral Tirbunal, who is the petitioner

¶14

herein, has filed the above petitions challenging the two awards dated 09.05.2017.

¶15

1/4

¶16

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶17

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶18

This Court is not traversing into the merits of the case, since

¶19

the preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent with reference to the award that was passed, namely, that the award has been passed beyond the period of one year. The award though dated 09.05.2017, has been printed out on a stamp paper dated 18.09.2017, which is nearly 4 months after the date of the award.

¶20

In both the petitions before this Court the date on which

¶21

the claim statements have been filed was 03.06.2016. Therefore, in view of Section 29(A)(i) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the proceedings should have been completed within a period of 12 months thereafter (i.e) on or before 03.06.2017. If the date of the stamp paper is taken into account, then the award is beyond the period of one year. The petitioner/respondent would submit that the learned Arbitrator has clearly misconducted himself in pre-dating the award.

¶22

This Court does not propose to go into the correctness or otherwise of the award. However, considering the fact that a doubt has been raised with reference to the actual date on which the award has been passed and with the consent of both the parties, the awards dated 09.05.2017 and 09.05.2017 are set aside and accordingly, these Original Petitions

¶23

2/4

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶26

are allowed. The parties are directed to commence the arbitral proceedings once again before Mr.N.Santosh Nagarajan, Advocate, Firms Tranquility Flat 3D, 11th Street, Ram Nagar, North Extn, Madipakkam, Chennai 600 091, who is agreed to be nominated as sole Arbitrator for both the arbitral proceedings. Both the parties submit that the claim statement and the counter had already been on file. Therefore, the Arbitrator shall commence the proceedings from the stage of recording evidence. The Arbitrator shall, within a period of two months from the date of entering his reference, conclude the arbitral proceedings and pass an award therein. The Arbitrator shall enter into a reference within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by issuing notice to the respective parties.

¶27

With the above directions, the Original Petitions are

¶28

allowed and the awards dated 09.05.2017 are set aside. The learned Arbitrator now appointed shall proceed with the arbitration proceedings as directed above. No costs.

¶29

10.02.2020.

¶30

Internet: Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking srn

¶31

3/4

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶34

P.T.ASHA.J

¶35

srn

¶36

O.P.Nos.764 and 772 of 2019

¶37

10.02.2020

¶38

4/4

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.Sumathi, v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sumathi, v. M/S. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

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, High Court, Madras as the liquidator of Neptune Inflatables Ltd., Vs Nil

The Government of Tamilnadu Vs a.Rangasamy

Mr.K.Prem Chander Vs M/S.Hella Engineering Private Ltd., Formerly Known as Ftz Engineeing P Ltd.

M/S.Jv Engineering Associate Vs General Manager

M/S.Singham Cinnema Vs M.Gagan Bothra

M/s a.S.Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Indusries Promotion Corporation of