Dismissed

R.Valayapathi v. M/s Shriram City Union Fin Ltd.

Madras HC20 Jan 2021OP/507/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside an ex parte award was disposed of as infructuous. The court held the challenge maintainable only if other parties to the award had not already addressed the matter, finding the petitioner's recourse untenable given the circumstances recorded.

What did the court decide?

The original petition for setting aside the arbitral award and the connected application are closed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

R.Valayapathi Vs M/s Shriram City Union Fin Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 20.01.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.P.No.507 of 2017
and
A.No.3757 of 2017
R.Valayapathi
S/o.Rathinasamy
... Petitioner
-Vs.-
1. M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,
No.4/289, Pycrafts Road, 1 st Floor,
Triplicane,
Chennai-600 005.
2. Prabhu
S/o.Amalraj
3. P.Radhakrishnan
S/o.Ponnan
4. Roshana
S/o.Rathinasamy

¶6

.. Respondents

¶7

This Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to set aside the exparte award of the Sole Arbitrator passed in A.C.P.No.(EF/CMS) 451/2013 dated 3.10.2016 as against the Petitioner herein with cost.

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/6

¶9

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.P.Kumar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan for R1

¶12

R2-Left

¶13

No appearance for R3 & R4 ***

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned counsel on record for sole petitioner and

¶16

Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, learned counsel on record for the contesting first respondent are before me in this web hearing on a video conferencing platform.

¶17

Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier

¶18

proceedings made in previous listing on 18.01.2021, which reads as follows:

¶19

' Registry to verify regarding service on second respondent (Prabhu S/o.Amalraj) and do the needful in the next listing.

¶20

2. List day-after-tomorrow i.e., 20.01.2021. '

¶21

Pursuant to aforementioned earlier proceedings made in previous

¶22

listing, this Court is informed today that learned counsel for petitioner has

¶23

filed an affidavit of service and notice sent to the second respondent has been returned with the postal endorsement 'LEFT'.

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/6

¶25

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶26

To be noted, captioned OP is listed today under the cause list caption 'FOR FINAL DISPOSAL/ARGUMENTS', but when the matter is taken up, there is a twist to the tale. This is owing to a Memo dated 11.01.2021, which has been email filed by the learned counsel for contesting

¶27

first respondent and a scanned reproduction of this Memo is as follows:

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/6

¶29

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶30

Learned counsel for contesting first respondent, adverting to the

¶31

aforesaid Memo, reiterated the contents of the above Memo and submitted that the contesting first respondent will not enforce the 'Arbitral Award dated 03.09.2014 bearing reference ACP (SCUF/EF) No.R K 103 of 2014' [hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] made by an 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT' for the sake of brevity] constituted by a sole Arbitrator.

¶32

To be noted, the lone petitioner in the captioned OP is

¶33

R.Valayapathi, (Son of Rathinasamy) and he is respondent No.3 in the impugned award made by AT.

¶34

This Court is informed by learned counsel for contesting first

¶35

respondent [which is claimant before AT in the impugned award] that no other party to the impugned award i.e., respondents 1, 2 and 4 before Arbitral Tribunal have laid any challenge to the impugned award. This submission is recorded.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/6

¶37

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶38

In the light of the aforementioned narrative, which captures what

¶39

unfurled in the hearing today, sole petitioner's counsel submits that petitioner's recourse to this Court against the impugned award has become infructuous and submits that it will suffice if the aforementioned memo and reiteration of contents of the same are recorded. To be noted, the other respondents before AT namely respondents 1, 2 and 4 have been arrayed as respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively in the captioned OP and they not having laid a challenge and not having taken recourse to this Court against impugned award, cannot assail the impugned award in the instant proceedings. This draws the curtains on captioned OP.

¶40

Captioned OP is disposed of as closed as infructuous recording the

¶41

above Memo filed by contesting first respondent and reiteration of contents

¶42

of the same in the hearing today by learned counsel for contesting first

¶43

respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Application No.3757 of 2017 is also closed as infructuous.

¶44

20.01.2021

¶45

Speaking order: Yes/No

¶46

Index: Yes / No kmi

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/6

¶48

O.P.No.507 of 2017 and A.No.3757 of 2017

¶49

M.SUNDAR, J.

¶50

kmi

¶51

O.P.No.507 of 2017
and
A.No.3757 of 2017

¶52

20.01.2021

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/6

R.Valayapathi v. M/s Shriram City Union Fin Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Valayapathi v. M/s Shriram City Union Fin Ltd.

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

M/s.Zee Entertainment Vs M/s.Abirami Mega Mall Private

M/s.Abirami Mega Mall Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/s.Zee Entertainment

Mvr Gas and Mvr Chemicals and Oils Bv Sadanand Proprietor Vs Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd., (Formerly known as Equitas Finance Ltd. and Equitas Finance Pvt. Ltd.

R.Rajmohan Vs M/S.Coimbatore Capital Limited

Mr.v.Mani,S/o.Mr.Veerasamy, Vs M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Ltd, Represented by its Authorised Representative

Arihant Foundations and Housing Limited Vs Pvp Ventures Limited and 2 others