Sivasakthi.R. v. Tata Motors Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court rejected an original petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside an arbitral award made in Mumbai. Applying the BGS SGS Soma principle, the Court held that since the proceedings and award were held in Mumbai, the Madras High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, leaving the matter for the competent forum.
What did the court decide?
Petition rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
O.P.No.549 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.01.2021
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.P.No.549 of 2014 1. Sivasakthi.R 2.Ravindran.C .. Petitioners vs. 1.TATA Motors Limited A company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956 having its Registered office at 3rd floor, Nanavati Mahalaya, 18, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 and interalia Corporate office at 1st Floor, Cybertech House, Plot No.B-63/65, Road No.21/34, J.B, Sawant Marg, Wagle Estate, Thane west – 400 604 2. Nitin Chavan Charted Accountant No.69/11, 4th Floor, Jivetesh Niwas Tarun Bharat Society, Chakala Anderi East, Mumbai – 400 099 ... Respondents
Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the arbitration award dated 7/03/2011 in the proceedings of Arbitration Case Lot 123/R 23503 of 2010 passed by the second respondent against the petitioners and thus render justice.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Saravanan
For Respondents : Mr.Anand Johnson for Mr.S.Namasivayam for R1 No appearance for R2
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Madras High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award made in Mumbai.
Whether the seat of arbitration, determined by the place of proceedings under the BGS SGS Soma principle, attracts exclusive jurisdiction to the courts at that seat.
Whether the Madras High Court should examine the merits of allegations of fraud when the petition lacks territorial jurisdiction.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sivasakthi.R
- petitioner
Ravindran.C
- respondent
TATA Motors Limited
- respondent
Nitin Chavan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court