Allowed

Gae Projects (P)Ltd v. Meccon Infrastructures

Madras HC29 Sept 2021OP/938/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to adjudicate a commercial dispute arising from non-payment of dues under a settlement agreement. Proceedings are to be conducted under the Arbitration Centre of the Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. K. Elango as sole arbitrator; proceedings to be conducted under Madras High Court Arbitration Rules.

Gae Projects (P)Ltd Vs Meccon Infrastructures — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.P.No.938 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated: 29.09.2021

¶4

Coram:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

Original Petition No.938 of 2018

¶7

GAE Projects (P) Ltd.,
11, Railway Station Road,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.MECCON INFRASTRUCTURES
A partnership firm rep by Partner,
77, Sainikpuri, Digari Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342 001.
2.Mr.Rajesh Gora
3.Mrs.Sunita Chaudhary
4.Mr.Baladev Gora
5.Mr.Nirmal Kumar
6.Mr.Balaram
7.Mr.Mangilal Sharma
8.Mr.Saurav Chaudary
...Respondents

¶8

Original Petition (O.P) filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the settlement agreement dated 23.12.2016 to adjudicate on the dispute that has arisen

¶9

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

¶10

Page No.1 / 6

¶11

O.P.No.938 of 2018

¶12

between the petitioner and the respondents on account of nonpayment of the sum of Rs.74,63,696/- with interest accrued thereon at 18% per annum.

¶13

For petitioner : M/s.Aiswarya for M/s.R & P Partners For respondent : No appearance

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

¶16

Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint a Sole Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of the settlement agreement dated 23.12.2016 to adjudicate on the dispute that has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents on account of non-payment of the sum of Rs.74,63,696/- with interest accrued thereon at 18% per annum.

¶17

The petitioner is a private limited company. The first

¶18

respondent approached the petitioner for the supply of raw materials, concrete and iron rods. On the basis of the order placed by the first respondent, the petitioner had supplied the products required by the first respondent from time to time between December, 2013 and March, 2014. Thereafter the respondent has so far made a payment of Rs.22,09,658/- out of Rs.96,73,354/- and an amount of Rs.74,63,696/- is still pending to be payable to the petitioner. The petitioner has also issued a legal notices under

¶19

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

¶20

Page No.2 / 6

¶21

O.P.No.938 of 2018

¶22

Section 138 of the NI Act to the respondent. Thereafter, a settlement agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent, whereby the first respondent agreed to settle the total outstanding by paying Rs.2 Lakhs per month commencing from January, 2017, however failed and neglected to standby the commitment. The respondents 2 to 8 were the partners of the first respondent at the time of execution of the settlement agreement. There is an arbitral clause in the agreements of lease. The petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause, has filed this petition for appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between them.

¶23

Despite notice being sent to the respondent and names

¶24

being printed in the cause list, there is no appearance on their behalf.

¶25

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

There is exchange of notice between the parties under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Be that as it may. This Court is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the dispute between the parties could be resolved only on appointment of an "Arbitrator". Accordingly:

¶27

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

¶28

Page No.3 / 6

¶29

O.P.No.938 of 2018

¶30

(a) This Original Petition is allowed.

¶31

(b) Mr.K.Elango, (Mob: 9940641919) having office at S-4A, III Floor, Singapore Plaza, Old No.164, New No.337, Linguchetty street, Chennai - 600 001, is hereby appointed as Sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the dispute inter-se -

¶32

parties.

¶33

¶34

notice to the parties and upon hearing them, pass an order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months

¶35

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶36

(d) The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix his remuneration

¶37

and other incidental expenses, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶38

(e) The expenses incurred for arbitration shall be borne by the respective parties.

¶39

(f) The arbitral proceedings shall be conducted under the

¶40

aegis of the Arbitration Centre of the Madras High Court, High Court

¶41

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

¶42

Page No.4 / 6

¶43

O.P.No.938 of 2018

¶44

Buildings, Chennai and in accordance with the Madras High Court

¶45

Arbitration Rules.

¶46

(g) There shall be no order as to costs in the present O.P.

¶47

29.09.2021
Speaking Order: Yes
mrm

¶48

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

Page No.5 / 6

O.P.No.938 of 2018

V. PARTHIBAN, J

mrm

O.P.No.938 of 2018

29.09.2021

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

¶56

Page No.6 / 6

Gae Projects (P)Ltd v. Meccon Infrastructures

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gae Projects (P)Ltd v. Meccon Infrastructures

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.Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs Mr.Nageshwar Rao

M/s.Tvs Credit Services Limited Vs Mrs.Kalawati Ramautar

Babulal Bokdia Vs no respondent

M/s Vgn Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Vgn Property Developers P Ltd) Vs B.a.Manimozhi Arasu and 6 others

Itc Ltd. Vs Raj Agencies, Partnership Firm

S.Hemabhushanam Vs Devaki @ Nagabhushanam