Dismissed

Mr.K.v.Vijayaraghavan v. Cholamandala Investments &

Madras HC1 Apr 2021CRP/3579/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court of Madras dismissed the petition challenging an order granting arbitration for a loan dispute. The court upheld the lower court's decision allowing the claim to be settled via arbitration as per the loan agreement clause.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to work out remedy before the arbitrator pursuant to the loan agreement arbitration clause. No costs.

Mr.K.v.Vijayaraghavan Vs Cholamandala Investments & — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶7

K.Vijayaraghavan S/o.K.A.Velayutham ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Cholamandalam Investments & Finance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, N.S.C.Bose Road, Parrys Corner, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 14.02.2017 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2016 in O.S. No.2945 of 2016 by the Hon'ble XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : No appearance

¶12

For Respondent : M/s.Harini for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the fair and decretal

¶15

order passed in I.A.No.131 of 2016 in O.S. No.2945 of 2016 dated 14.02.2017 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶19

thereby, allowing the petition filed by the respondent to pursue the suit claim by way of arbitration in accordance with the loan agreement.

¶20

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant.

¶21

The petitioner filed a suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs.11,72,265.24 together with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. According to the petitioner, the petitioner availed a loan from the respondent to the tune of Rs.3 crores. The loan amount was repayable with interest in 120 equated monthly installments. Due to the exorbitant interest, the petitioner pre-closed the loan amount and availed the loan in a nationalised bank. At the time of pre-closure, the respondent insisted payment of an additional sum of Rs.11,03,54.24 towards pre-closure charges. The petitioner initially refused to pay the pre-closure charges citing the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the amount which is collected as pre-closure charges. As such,

¶22

the petitioner filed a suit. Pending the suit, the respondent filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to dismiss the suit permitting the petitioner to pursue the suit claim by way of arbitration.

¶23

2/4

¶24

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

¶25

CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶26

3. Clause 26 of the loan agreement reads as under:

¶27

“Clause 26. ARBITRATION:

¶28

All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of this Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the Sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the Company. The award given by such Arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties to this Agreement. In the event of an appointed arbitrator dying or being unable or unwilling to act as arbitrator for any reason, the Company, on such death of the arbitrator or his inability or unwillingness to act as arbitrator, shall appoint another person.”

¶29

Accordingly, any dispute arising out of loan agreement shall be

¶30

settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Accordingly, the court below rightly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to work out his remedy before the

¶31

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶35

kal

¶36

arbitrator in accordance with Clause 26 of the loan agreement entered into

¶37

between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶38

Therefore, this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order

¶39

passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands

¶40

dismissed. No costs.
01.04.2021
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kal
To
The XVIII Additional City Civil Judge,
Chennai.
CRP.NPD.No.3579 of 2017

¶41

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

¶42

4/4

Mr.K.v.Vijayaraghavan v. Cholamandala Investments &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.K.v.Vijayaraghavan v. Cholamandala Investments &

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

Tamilselvan Vs Thulasi

S.Elavazhagan Vs Dr.a.Dhanaraj

P.Ramanathan Vs Parimalavardhini

Kannammal(Died) Vs Venkataraman

S.Sahar Banu Vs K.K.Ramamurthy

Chandra Vs Gajendiran