Disposed

M/s.Chennai Petroleum v. Lakshmi Travels

Madras HC8 Dec 2020OP/916/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two original petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside awards were dismissed. The parties settled the dispute via a Memorandum of Compromise. The court dispensed with physical presence for recording the settlement and ordered payment out of the deposited award amount to the petitioner, disposing of both petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; payment out of 50% deposited award amount ordered to petitioner; arbitral award substituted by Memorandum of Compromise.

M/s.Chennai Petroleum Vs Lakshmi Travels — Arbitration | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 08.12.2020

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶7

M/s.Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited Manali Refinery Manali, Chennai-600 068. Represented by its Deputy General Manager Mr.M.Sankaranarayanan ... Petitioner in both OPs vs.

¶8

Lakshmi Travels Represented by its Sole Proprietor Mrs.Meera Sivasankaran No.1, Vasantha Garden Street Ayanavaram, Chennai-600 023.

¶9

Mr.P.S.Govindarajan

¶10

Sole Arbitrator New No.9, Ramachandra Iyer Street Nehru Nagar, Chromepet (East) Chennai-600 044. ... Respondents in both OPs

¶11

(R2 stands deleted vide this order).

¶12

Original Petition No.916 of 2015 filed under Section 34 of the

¶13

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the impugned common award made on 12.07.2015 insofar as directs the first

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

Page No.1/12

¶16

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶17

respondent to pay a sum of Rs.12,50,114/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Fourteen Only) under Tender NIT No.CPCL/CC/T-035(TT) 2005-2006 with interest thereon and allow this petition with costs.

¶18

Original Petition No.933 of 2015 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the impugned common award made on 12.07.2015 insofar as directs the first respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,44,860/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Only) under Tender NIT No.CPCL/CC/T-035(TT) 2005-2006 with interest thereon and allow this petition with costs.

¶19

For petitioner in both OPs : Mr.S.Arjun Suresh For Respondents in both OPs : Mr.G.Derrick Sam for R1

¶20

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶21

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings dated 28.09.2020, pursuant to which, captioned 'Original Petitions' ('OPs' in plural and 'OP' in singular for the sake of brevity and convenience) have been listed under the caption 'FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT' today.

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

Page No.2/12

¶24

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶25

In a web hearing on a video conferencing platform today or in

¶26

other words in the virtual hearing today, Mr.S.Arjun Suresh of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm) on behalf of petitioner in both captioned OPs and Mr.G.Derrick Sam, learned counsel on record for contesting first respondent in both captioned OPs are before me.

¶27

Both aforementioned learned counsel submit that lis which led to the captioned OPs between parties has been amicably settled and the terms of settlement have been reduced to writing vide a 'Memorandum of Compromise and Understanding dated 13.11.2020' [hereinafter 'said MOC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Both learned counsel submit that said MOC has been signed by both sides and their respective counsel in the presence of each other, saying so both learned counsel

¶28

make a request that captioned OPs may please be disposed of in terms of

¶29

said MOC.

¶30

Be that as it may, the sole arbitrator who constituted the 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and made

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶32

Page No.3/12

¶33

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶34

the common impugned award has been arrayed as second respondent in both captioned OPs. Considering the nature of grounds and trajectory the matter has taken, following the procedure adopted in Vinay Heavy Equipments case [ Zonal General Manager, Ircon Internatinal Limited Vs. Vinay Heavy Equipments reported in (2015) 13 SCC 680 ] , (to be noted, deletion procedure is captured in order reported in 2007 SCC OnLine SC 4) second respondent stands deleted in both captioned OPs. This means that contesting first respondent in both captioned OPs now

¶35

become lone respondent in respective OPs.

¶36

Both aforementioned learned counsel submit that in the light of virtual hearing and owing to the parties and their respective counsel having signed said MOC in the presence of each other, physical presence

¶37

of parties for recording said MOC may please be dispensed with. This

¶38

request is acceded to.

¶39

Before I proceed to record said MOC, it is necessary to record

¶40

that both learned counsel submit without any disputation or disagreement

¶41

that interim stay of common impugned award was granted subject to

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶43

Page No.4/12

¶44

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶45

deposit of 50% of award amount, such deposit of 50% of award amount qua common impugned award has since been made and the bank receipts evidencing deposit of such monies in a interest bearing account have also been filed under cover of a separate 'memo dated 03.12.2020' ['said Memo' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

¶46

Adverting to paragraphs (G) and (I4) of said MOC, it is submitted that payment out of aforementioned amounts with accrued interest can be ordered vide this order itself as the petitioner is entitled to take back the said monies in the light of said MOC. This submission is recorded, request is acceded to and payment out of 50% of amount qua common impugned award in captioned OPs lying in interest bearing deposits are ordered in favour of petitioner in both captioned OPs.

¶47

For the sake of convenience and clarity, said MOC and said Memo together with annexures are scanned and reproduced infra.

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶49

Page No.5/12

¶50

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶52

Page No.6/12

¶53

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶55

Page No.7/12

¶56

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶58

Page No.8/12

¶59

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶61

Page No.9/12

¶62

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶63

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶64

Page No.10/12

¶65

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶67

Page No.11/12

¶68

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶69

M.SUNDAR.J.,

¶70

¶71

Aforementioned said MOC and said Memo shall form part of

¶72

this common order in captioned OPs.

¶73

Registry to process payment out without insisting on separate payment out application or separate orders for the same. For the purpose of payment out, the person entitled/authorised to receive the payment from the Registry on behalf of petitioner-Company is signatory of said MOC namely, Mr.P.Shankar, aged 54 years, S/o.Late P.S.Parameswaran, Company Secretary of petitioner-Company.

¶74

Though obvious common impugned award will now stand substituted by said MOC, both captioned OPs are disposed of on aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶75

08.12.2020

¶76

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mk

¶77

O.P.Nos.916 & 933 of 2015

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶79

Page No.12/12

M/s.Chennai Petroleum v. Lakshmi Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Chennai Petroleum v. Lakshmi Travels

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.N.Selvakumar, S/o. Natchimuthu Gounder, Vs M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Rep.by its Authorised Signatory

Income Tax Department, Tax Recovery Officer-2, Vs The Official Liquidator

K.Parasmal Jain, S/O. Late D.Kanwarlal, Vs The Official Liquidator (As Liquidator of M/s.Mount Mettur Pharmaceuticals Limited

Kalavalli Vs the Executive Director

M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Rep.by its Chief General Manager, Vs Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur(Third)

Mr.K.Palani, S/o. Kannan, Vs M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd, Represented by its P.a.Holder