Dismissed

Christopher Edison Sunder Singh v. Anne Christopher

Madras HC7 Oct 2021CRP/2153/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench dismissed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging an order in a section 34 application. The Court held that the petitioner ought to have contested the lower court application, as parallel arbitration proceedings under Article 227 are rarely entertained.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with no costs; directions issued to the Principal District Judge to decide the underlying application on merits within three months.

Christopher Edison Sunder Singh Vs Anne Christopher — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 07.10.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021 &
CMP.No.16298 of 2021
Chrishtopher Edison Sunder Singh ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Anne Christopher
2.P.Louie Bass ... Respondents
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to strike off the petition in A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 on
the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Myilsamy
ORDER

¶7

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenging the filing of an application A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 before the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶8

1/6

¶9

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

¶10

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶11

The contention of the petitioner is that the arbitral award was passed on 04.03.2011 under which, the first respondent was directed to pay certain sums of money to the petitioner. According to him, the first respondent has filed an application A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act challenging the arbitral award dated 04.03.2011 beyond the prescribed period as fixed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. According to him, the application was filed beyond the maximum period of 120 days and hence, it is barred by law of limitation. According to him, the Principal District Court, Coimbatore does not have jurisdiction to hear the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the first respondent in A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 as seat of Arbitration is at Erode but not at Coimbatore. According to him, the petitioner has received notice in A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 filed by the first respondent before the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and after having received the notice, he has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

2/6

¶13

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

¶14

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶15

There cannot be two parallel proceedings one under section 34 of

¶16

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the other under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having received the notice in A.O.P.No.105 of 2021, this Court is of the considered view that in the interest of the petitioner, ought to have contested A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 pending on the file of the Principal District Court, Coimbatore and raised the very same grounds that have been raised in this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Only in rarest of rare cases, this Court can entertain civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in arbitration matters. Arbitration is meant for expeditious disposal of disputes between the parties. Therefore, in the interest of the parties to the dispute, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner can very well be redressed by the Principal District Court, Coimbatore which is dealing with A.O.P.No.105 of 2021

¶17

filed by the first respondent wherein the petitioner herein is the first respondent and is the main contesting party.

¶18

3/6

¶19

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

¶20

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶21

For the foregoing reasons, this Court issues the following

¶22

directions:

¶23

(a) The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore shall consider the grounds referred to supra raised by the Appellant while deciding A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 on merits and in accordance with law.

¶24

(b) The learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore shall dispose of A.O.P.No.105 of 2021 after hearing the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

With the aforesaid directions, this civil revision petition is disposed
of. No costs.
07.10.2021
nl
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

¶26

4/6

¶27

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

¶28

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶29

¶30

The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore

¶31

5/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶34

¶35

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶36

CRP (PD).No.2153 of 2021

¶37

07.10.2021

¶38

6/6

¶39

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

Christopher Edison Sunder Singh v. Anne Christopher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Christopher Edison Sunder Singh v. Anne Christopher

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

Mrs.M.Subamalar Vs Managing Director

The National Ins., Co., Ltd., Mettupalayam Vs Rangamma

The Managing Director Vs Sundaresan

The Managing Director Vs Nasrin Banu

R.Baskar Vs M.Chinnusamy

Manikandan Vs K.N.P.Vadivel