Disposed

T.Ravichandran, S/o. M.Thangavel, v. Mrs.Parimala Raju, W/o. Kalaignar Thangaraju

Madras HC24 Aug 2021OP/200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition to terminate an arbitrator's mandate and appointed S. Arjun Suresh as sole arbitrator, holding that validity of the agreement is for the tribunal and counsel for the first respondent did not object to re-appointment.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of S. Arjun Suresh as sole arbitrator; parties to bear own costs.

T.Ravichandran, S/o. M.Thangavel, Vs Mrs.Parimala Raju, W/o… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

O.P. No.200 of 2021

¶7

and

¶8

A.Nos.794 and 795 of 2021

¶9

In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. and

¶10

In the matter of Arbitration of dispute between Mrs. Parimala Raju and M/s Golden Fish mean and Fish Oil Company.

¶11

1.Mr.T.Ravichandran S/o.M.Thangavel, No.260-E, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal-637001.

¶12

N. Murugesan S/o.Nallathambi, No.252, K.K.P.Street, A.S.Pettai, Namakkal 637001.

¶13

P. Nepolian S/o.Paneerselvam, 29/A, Pensioner Street, Cuddalore Port, Cuddalore 607003. . . . Petitioners Versus 1. Mrs.Parimala Raju W/o.Kalaignar Thangaraju Door No.43/20, Sseskandha Apt No.11B, Block, BTG Street, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

P.Dinesh Kumar, Arbitrator, No. 1, 1^st floor, Jagadambal Colony,

¶16

¶17

2^nd Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 14

¶18

. . . Respondents Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to

¶19

i) Terminate the mandate of the arbitrator, the 2^nd respondent herein,

¶20

in the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent against the petitioners herein

¶21

ii) Award costs in favour of the petitioners.

¶22

A.Nos.794 and 795 of 2021

¶23

In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. and

¶24

In the matter of Arbitration of dispute between Mrs. Parimala Raju and M/s Golden Fish mean and Fish Oil Company and 3 Ors.

¶25

1.Mr.T.Ravichandran S/o.M.Thangavel, No.260-E, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal-637001.

¶26

N. Murugesan S/o.Nallathambi, No.252, K.K.P.Street, A.S.Pettai, Namakkal 637001.

¶27

P. Nepolian S/o.Paneerselvam, 29/A, Pensioner Street, Cuddalore Port, Cuddalore 607003. . . . Applicants Versus 1. Mrs.Parimala Raju https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W/o.Kalaignar Thangaraju Door No.43/20, Sseskandha Apt No.11B, Block, BTG Street, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶28

¶29

No. 1, 1

¶30

P.Dinesh Kumar, Arbitrator, No. 1, 1^st floor, Jagadambal Colony, 2^nd Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 14 . . . Respondents

¶31

A.No.794 of 2021

¶32

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 1^st Respondent between the Applicants and the 1^st Respondent pending disposal of the Original Petition.

¶33

A.No.795 of 2021

¶34

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Direct the 1^st respondent to produce the original alleged loan agreement dated 02.06.2014 pending disposal of the Original Petition.

¶35

This Original Petition along with these Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Ms.A.Sella Visalakshi advocate for the petitioners in O.P.No.200 of 2021 and for the Applicants in A.Nos.794 and 795 of 2021 and Mr.C.Veraraghavan, Advocate for the respondents in O.P.No.200 of 2021 and A.Nos.794 and 795 of 2021 and upon reading the Petition and the Affidavit of N.Murugesan and the Counter Affidavit of Mrs.Parimala Raju filed in O.P.No.200 of 2021 and the Judges Summons and the Affidavit of N.Murugesan filed in A.Nos.794 and

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 795 of 2021,

¶37

¶38

it is ordered as follows:-

¶39

That Mr.S.Arjun Suresh (Enrol.No.Ms.1062/04) residing at New

¶40

No.54, 3^rd Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennai –600020 Mobile No: 9789971118 be and is hereby appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the matter.

¶41

That the learned Arbitrator appointed herein, shall, after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

That the learned Sole Arbitrator appointed herein shall fix his fees and other incidental charges, and the same shall be borne by the parties equally.

¶43

That both parties hereto shall bear their own costs.

¶44

WITNESS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE 24^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

¶45

Sd./-

¶46

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.II) //Certified to be true copy//

¶47

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶48

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶49

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

20.09.2021

O.P.No.200 of 2021 and

¶54

A.Nos.794 and 795 of 2021

¶55

ORDER

¶56

DATED: 24.08.2021

¶57

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶58

FOR APPROVAL: 30.09.2021

¶59

APPROVED ON : 30.09.2021

¶60

Copy to:

¶61

Mr.S.Arjun Suresh Arbitrator, (Enrol.No.Ms.1062/04) Residing at New No.54, 3^rd Main Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennai –600020 Mobile No: 9789971118.

¶62

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶63

¶64

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶65

Dated 24.08.2021

¶66

CORAM:

¶67

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶68

O.P. No.200 of 2021

¶69

and Application Nos.794 and 795 of 2021

¶70

1.Mr.T.Ravichandran

¶71

N. Murugesan

¶72

P. Nepolian . . . Petitioners

¶73

Versus

¶74

Mrs.Parimala Raju

¶75

P.Dinesh Kumar, Arbitrator, No. 1, 1^st floor, Jagadambal Colony, 2^nd Street, Royapettah, Chennai – 14 . . . Respondents

¶76

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator, the 2^nd respondent herein, in the arbitration proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent against the petitioners herein and award costs in favour of the petitioners.

¶77

For Petitioners : A. Sella Visalakshi

¶78

For Respondents : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan

¶79

ORDER

¶80

This original petition has been filed to terminate the mandate of the

¶81

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶82

arbitrator, the 2^nd respondent herein, in the arbitration proceedings initiated

¶83

¶84

by the 1^st respondent against the petitioners herein and award costs in favour of the petitioners.

¶85

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that there was no loan agreement what so ever existing between the parties, whereas only investment agreement has been made between the partners. Since the invocation of arbitration itself is not according to law, terminate the mandate of the Arbitrator does not arise at all.

¶86

Though several grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is agreement between the parties and the petitioners had availed loan. Now, in order to protract the proceedings, they had filed this original petition. At any event,

¶87

learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that there is no objection for appointing an another arbitrator.

¶88

The Agreement dated 02.06.2014 executed by the Firm and the first respondent herein, wherein, the petitioners are the partners of the firm,

¶89

which is not in dispute. When there is an existence of agreement, this Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cannot go into validity of the same. It is the contention of the learned

¶90

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶91

¶92

counsel for the petitioners that they have not signed any agreement. Such a

¶93

plea can be canvassed only before the Arbitral Tribunal. The very appointment of the second respondent is not a fair procedure, as per the judgment of PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS DPC & ANR Vs. HSCC (INDIA) LTD (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1517). Hence, the entire proceeding has to be set aside.

¶94

Having regard to the fact that there is an agreement entered between the parties and further, there is no dispute with regard to certain payments and also considering the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has no objection for appointing another Arbitrator, this Court is of the view to appoint Mr.S.Arjun Suresh (Enrol.No.Ms.1062/04) as an Arbitrator to arbitrate the matter.

¶95

Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is ordered as follows:

¶96

i) that Mr.S.Arjun Suresh residing at

¶97

(Enrol.No.Ms.1062/04) New No.54, 3^rd Main Road,

¶98

Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennai –600020

¶99

Mobile No: 9789971118 is appointed as a Sole

¶100

Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the

¶101

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶102

matter.

¶103

¶104

ii] The learned sole Arbitrator appointed herein,

¶105

shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon

¶106

hearing them, pass an award as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the Order.

¶107

iii] The learned sole Arbitrator appointed herein shall be paid fees and other incidental charges, fixed by him and the same shall be borne by the parties equally.

¶108

This Arbitration Original Petition is ordered accordingly, leaving

¶109

the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected applications are closed.

¶110

Sd./-N.S.K.J., 24.08.2021 //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

¶111

COURT OFFICER(O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

¶112

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T.Ravichandran, S/o. M.Thangavel, v. Mrs.Parimala Raju, W/o. Kalaignar Thangaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Ravichandran, S/o. M.Thangavel, v. Mrs.Parimala Raju, W/o. Kalaignar Thangaraju

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

M.K.Chitkara,Ce., Vs 1.UNION of India Rep.by

M/s Tsr Films Private Limited Vs M/s Rohini Movie Park

M/s Tsr Films Private Limited Vs M/s Rohini Movie Park

M/s.Indospace Industrial Park Oragadam, Walajabad Pvt. Ltd., rep.by its authorised signatory, Vs M/s. Leapridge Advisors LLP

T.Ravichandran, S/o. M.Thangavel, Vs Mr.S.G.Natesan, S/o.Gurusamy Gounder

Mary Rajasekaran, Vs University of Madras