Dismissed

Destimoney Securities Private v. Nalina.M.

Madras HC2 Sept 2020OP/78/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three original petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside arbitral awards were listed for final disposal. The petitioner was granted leave to withdraw the petitions, with rights under the NSE bye-laws preserved. The petitions were subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw the three original petitions with preservation of rights under NSE bye-laws; no order as to costs.

Destimoney Securities Private Vs Nalina.M. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 02.09.2020

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

O.P.No.78 of 2016
&
O.P.No.81 of 2016
&
O.P.No.264 of 2016
O.P.No.78 of 2016
Destimoney Securities Private limited
By its Director
Having its registered office at phoenix House,
B wing, 2 nd floor,
Senspati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (w)
Mumbai 400 013
….Petitioner
Vs
1. Ms Nalini M
Residing at No 3/155, Anbalayan,
Thayappa Nagar,
Koyambedu Tirupattur,
Vellore 635601

¶7

Mr G Prabakar, Sole Arbitrator, National Stock Exchange, Dr RK Road, Mylapore Chennai 600 004 …Respondents

¶8

Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 12.08.2015 passed by the second respondent.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

1/6

¶11

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶12

O.P.No.81 of 2016

¶13

Destimoney Securities Private limited By its Director Having its registered office at phoenix House, B wing, 2^nd floor,

¶14

Senspati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (w) Mumbai 400 013 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Mr Thangakkani G Residing at No 37/C, Selva Nagar, Thiyagadurgam, Kallakuruchi TK, Villupuram 606206 Tamilnadu State

¶15

Mr C Madasamy, Sole Arbitrator, National Stock Exchange, Dr RK Road, Mylapore Chennai 600 004 …Respondents

¶16

Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 05.08.2015 passed by the second respondent.

¶17

O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶18

Destimoney Securities Private limited By its Director Having its registered office 6^th Floor, A-Wing, Tech Web Centre, Oshwara New Link Road Jogeshwari- West, Mumbai 400102

¶19

Vs.

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶21

2/6

¶22

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶23

Ms Radhika D Residing at No 37/C, Selva Nagar, Thiyagadurgam, Kallakuruchi, Villipuram 606 206 Tamilnadu State

¶24

Mr N Chandrasekaran,
Sole Arbitrator,
National Stock Exchange,
Dr RK Road, Mylapore
Chennai 600 004 …Respondents
Original Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the award dated 12.08.2015
passed by the second respondent.
In all OPs
For Petitioner : Mr.Kunal Katariya
assisted by Ms.Lucy Massey
for Ms.Srinidhi Srinivasan
For 1 st Respondent : Mr.K.Thilageswaran
in all OPs
COMMON ORDER

¶25

Captioned 'Original Petitions' ('OPs' in plural and 'OP' in singular

¶26

for the sake of brevity) were listed under the caption 'FOR FINAL

¶27

DISPOSAL / ARGUMENTS' today.

¶28

Petitioner Company is the same in all three OPs. Mr.Kunal

¶29

Katariya, learned counsel assisted by Ms.Lucy Massey, on behalf of

¶30

counsel on record Ms.Srinidhi Srinivasan was before me on behalf of

¶31

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶32

3/6

¶33

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶34

petitioner in all three OPs. Contesting first respondent are three different individuals in three captioned OPs and Mr.K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel on record for contesting first respondent in all three OPs is before me. Mr.Pandoo Naig, who was identified by counsel for petitioner as C.E.O. of the petitioner company also joined the hearing. To be noted, three different individuals being arbitrators who made the respective impugned awards in the OPs have been arrayed as second respondent in the concerned OPs.

¶35

In this listing, which is a web-hearing i.e., virtual hearing on a video-conferencing platform, learned counsel for petitioner sought leave to withdraw captioned OPs. Counsel on record Ms.Srinidhi Srinivasan e- mail filed a common memo of withdrawal, copy of which is as follows:

¶36

'MEMO

¶37

The Petitioner submits as follows:

¶38

The Petitioner seeks to withdraw the Petition- O.P. No. 78/2016,OP 81/2016 and OP 264/2016 before the Honourable Madras High Court with Liberty to file appropriate arbitral proceedings.

¶39

Dated at Chennai on this the 2^nd September 2020

¶40

Counsel for Petitioner'

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶42

4/6

¶43

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶44

Learned counsel for petitioner while seeking leave to withdraw captioned OPs made a plea that the rights, if any, of both parties under National Stock Exchange of India Limited, bye-laws and more particularly, Chapter XI therein captioned 'ARBITRATION', may please

¶45

be preserved.

¶46

Though the memo of withdrawal talks about liberty to file appropriate arbitral proceedings, this Court, without expressing any opinion or view on the same, permits the petitioner to withdraw captioned OPs albeit merely preserving the rights, if any of the petitioner and contesting first respondent under National Stock Exchange of India Limited, bye-laws and more particularly, Chapter X1 therein captioned 'ARBITRATION'.

¶47

All three OPs will stand dismissed as withdrawn preserving the rights of the parties to the limited extent mentioned supra. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

02.09.2020

¶49

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶50

5/6

¶51

O.P.No.78 of 2016 & O.P.No.81 of 2016 & O.P.No.264 of 2016

gpa/sgl

M.SUNDAR.J.,

gpa/sgl

O.P.No.78 of 2016 &
O.P.No.81 of 2016 &
O.P.No.264 of 2016

¶56

02.09.2020

¶57

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶58

6/6

Destimoney Securities Private v. Nalina.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Destimoney Securities Private v. Nalina.M.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Komalavalli Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

The Official Liquidator Vs

The Official Liquidator, High Court Madras the Official Liquidator of Vs nil

The Chairman and Managing Vs M/s.Nandhini Gas Agencies

Messrs.Csm Enterprises Vs M/S.Fullerton India Credit

Ramanathan Subramanian Vs The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras as the provisional Liquidator of