Allowed

Mr.B.Thiruselvan, v. M/s Rahaa Associates Layout Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Directors

Madras HC11 Feb 2021OP/570/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent arising from a loan transaction. The court excluded other respondents from the proceedings despite their impleadment. The petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. S. Silambannan as sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the petitioner and first respondent within six months.

Mr.B.Thiruselvan, Vs M/s Rahaa Associates Layout Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.P.No.570 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.02.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶6

Original Petition No.570 of 2020
and
Original Application No.537 of 2020
B.Thiruselvan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.M/s.Rahaa Associates Layout Private Ltd.,
Rep by its Directors
No.125 A1, Poonamallee High Road,
Varalakshmi Nagar, Maduravoyal,
Chennai – 600 095.
2.R.Boovarahan
3.B.Jayanthi
4.M.David Raj
5.D.Padmaja Bama ... Respondents
Prayer : Original Petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a sole arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve
the disputes through arbitral proceedings between the parties.

¶7

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

¶8

O.P.No.570 of 2020

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Anand Johnson for Mr.S.Namasivayam

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.C.Seethapathy for R1 to R3 Mr.J.Lawrence for R4 and R5

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner has filed this petition u/s.11(4) of the Arbitration and

¶13

Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to Arbitration in respect of the

¶14

disputes that had arisen in Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.09.2015.

¶15

Though, the Memorandum of Understanding was only between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent, the petitioner has sought to implead the respondents 2 to 5 on the basis of the recitals contained in clause Nos. 3 and 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-

¶17

(Rupees Two Crores and fifty Laksh only) had been given as a loan to the

¶18

1^st respondent who had promised to return the same as Rs.5,00,00,000/(Rupees Five Crores only).

¶19

The respondents on entering appearance has filed their counter in

¶20

which apart from raising the issue of limitation, the respondents have also

¶21

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

¶22

O.P.No.570 of 2020

¶23

contended that the petitioner has impleaded the respondents who are not parties to the Memorandum of Understanding. On this ground they would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that a mere perusal of the Memorandum of Understanding indicates that the amount has been disbursed to various persons who had been added as respondents 2 to 5 and that the respondent has not re-paid the amount as promised by him. Therefore, these persons have been added for bringing out the above fact. He would submit that the invocation of Arbitration is well within time.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents apart

¶26

from contending that the claim is barred by limitation had also stated that earlier Arbitrator had been appointed and the notice u/s.21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was issued only to the 1^st respondent, whereas, now the

¶27

petitioner seeks to implead non-parties to the proceeding.

¶28

After hearing the arguments of the parties, this court had put

¶29

across a suggestion that an Arbitrator would be appointed to resolve the dispute and the Arbitration shall be restricted only to the petitioner and the

¶30

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

¶31

O.P.No.570 of 2020

¶32

1^st respondent. The respondents 2 to 5 shall not be parties to the Arbitral

¶33

proceeding. Both the counsels have consented for the same.

¶34

Considering the fact that disputes have arisen between the parties

¶35

and parties have agreed to arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism, it is ordered as follows:

¶36

i) Mr.S.Silambannan, Senior Advocate, residing at AL-193, First

¶37

Street, 12^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040, Near Sundaram Medical Hospital, Contact No.98400 66919, is appointed as the Arbitrator to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes inter se the parties.

¶38

ii) The learned Arbitrator may, after issuing notice to the

¶39

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 the order. It is open to the respondent to raise all legal objections as to the validity of contract.

¶40

iii) The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration

¶41

and other incidental expenses as per law.

¶42

iv) The proceedings may be conducted under the aegis of the

¶43

Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Rules.

¶44

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

¶45

O.P.No.570 of 2020

¶46

9 . The Original Petition is, accordingly, allowed , leaving the parties to

¶47

bear their own costs. Considering the fact that the Arbitrator is appointed, the application is closed giving liberty to the applicant to move the Arbitral

¶48

Tribunal.

¶49

11.02.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
dsa
To
Mr.S.Silambannan, Senior Advocate,
AL-193, First Street, 12 th Main Road,
[Near Sundaram Medical Hospital]
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.

¶50

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

O.P.No.570 of 2020

P.T.ASHA,J.

dsa

Original Petition No.570 of 2020
and
Original Application No.537 of 2020

¶55

11.02.2021

¶56

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

Mr.B.Thiruselvan, v. M/s Rahaa Associates Layout Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Directors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.B.Thiruselvan, v. M/s Rahaa Associates Layout Pvt. Ltd, Rep.by its Directors

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

Texmaco Rail and Engineering Limited (Formerly Kalindee Rail Nirman Engineers Limited) Vs Chennai Metro Rail Limited and another

Ms.Subhadra R.Shah Vs M/S.Ambojini Property

Muraliammal (Died) M.Elumalai (Died) 1.E.Kasthuri and 5 others Vs Guruswamy and 16 others

S R Jangid IPS Vs Nagaimugan

Will of E.K.Pattabirama Vs P.Saraswathi Ammal

M/s.Edac Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Legal Officer Mr.v.Balaji Pathak, Vs M/s. Kirloskar Corrocoat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Company Secretary Mr.AnujaLatukar