Dismissed

Dr.Ajay Venkatesh, Son of R.Sarvothaman, v. True Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its managing Director

Madras HC26 Oct 2021A/3806/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The arbitrator considered an application to recall a previous order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The applicant challenged the existence of the corporate entity and the authority of the signatory. The court held that these objections lie within the jurisdiction of the appointed arbitrator and dismissed the application to avoid delaying procee

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; liberty granted to raise all objections before the Arbitrator.

Dr.Ajay Venkatesh, Son of R.Sarvothaman, Vs True Sai Motors Pvt… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Application No.3806 of 2021 in O.P.No.572 of 2020

¶2

Application No. 3806 of 2021 in O.P. No. 572 of 2020

¶3

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶4

This application has been filed to recall the order dated

¶5

08.07.2021 passed in the original petition in O.P.No.572 of 2020,

¶6

appointing an Arbitrator.

¶7

The main contention of the applicant is that the Original Petition has been filed in the name of " True Sai Motors Private Limited", however, there is no such entity existence. Further, the authorised signatory of the above original petition, is not an authorised person to file the same, since, a resolution passed by the Directors of the Company " True Sai Works (P) Ltd.", authorising Mr.S.E.Palanivel, has been filed along with the above original petition. Therefore, the order passed in the original petition has to be recalled.

¶8

It is to be noted that in the above original petition, Arbitrator

¶9

has already been appointed by this court. Further, the applicant has raised

¶10

objections, as to the admissibility of the document, for the first time in this

¶11

1/3

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

Application No.3806 of 2021 in O.P.No.572 of 2020

¶14

application. When the present application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no such objections can be made by the applicant. As the parties are governed by the contract, all the objections can be looked into by the learned Arbitrator appointed by this court and "Whether such company is existence and registered under the Companies Act?" also can be gone into by the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, this court is

¶15

of the view that this application is nothing but, one more attempt to drag the
proceedings.
4. Accordingly, this application is dismissed by granting liberty to the
applicant to raise all the objections before the Arbitrator.
26.10.2021
mst

¶16

2/3

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

Application No.3806 of 2021 in O.P.No.572 of 2020

¶19

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶20

mst

¶21

Application No.3806 of 2021
in O.P.No. 572 of 2020

¶22

26.10.2021

¶23

3/3

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

Dr.Ajay Venkatesh, Son of R.Sarvothaman, v. True Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ajay Venkatesh, Son of R.Sarvothaman, v. True Sai Motors Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its managing Director

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

K. Arumugam Vs M/s. Venkatesh and Co., Represented by K.Venkatesh

M/s.Ntpc Tamilnadu Vs M/S.Rppinfra Projects Ltd.

Samunnati Agro Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr.Sreenivasa Bhat and 2 others

The Chief Engineer Vs M/s.Pure envior Engineering

Freight Bridge Logistics Vs A1-Arsath Entrprises

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Mrs.E.Ramya Vs Mr.Hemant Nagal