Disposed

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. P.Janakiraman

Madras HC26 Apr 2021OSA/176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal filed to set aside an arbitral award under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court disposed of the matter based on a memorandum of compromise signed by the parties. The compromise involved the appellant agreeing to pay the award amount within four weeks with contingent interest claims.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of on the basis of the memorandum of compromise. A compromise decree was directed to be drawn up. No order as to costs.

The Chairman and Managing Director, Vs P.Janakiraman — Arbitration | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY O.S.A.No.176 of 2021

¶7

The Chairman and Managing Director, State Industrial Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu, (Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking), 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road, Post Box No.7223, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Appellant Vs. 1.P.Janakiraman, Engineering Contractor, No.2a, Govindhapillai Street, Arumugapettai, Walajabad, Kancheepuram District. 2.Thiru.S.P.Krishnamoorthy, Chief Engineer (H), Retired, E-2, Adyar Apartments, Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, 1956 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order dated 26.02.2019 passed in O.P.No.495 of 2011.

¶9

Prayer in O.P.No.495 of 2011:

¶10

To set aside the award dated 25.04.2011 passed by the second respondent in Proceedings No.ARB/2010-10 and to allow all the counter claims filed by the petitioner.

¶11

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

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.M.Sriram for M/s.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy

¶13

For Respondents

¶14

: Mr.V.Srikanth for respondent No.1

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶17

The appeal arises out of an order dated February 26, 2019 passed on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The only dispute between the parties pertained to the quantum of interest. The parties have now filed a memorandum of compromise dated April 23, 2021. The memorandum is signed by advocates representing both the appellant and the first respondent and by the respective representatives of the parties, including by the Assistant General Manager (Legal) for the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited.

¶18

The second respondent is the arbitrator. He has been needlessly impleaded.

¶19

Paragraph 9 of the memorandum records that as per the award and interest calculation, the award-holder is legally entitled to a sum of Rs.2,21,19,106/-. Paragraph 10 of the memorandum provides that the appellant will make payment of such amount of Rs.2,21,19,106/- within four weeks from April 23, 2021, failing which the first respondent herein will be entitled to pursue the pending execution proceedings, being E.P.No.6 of 2020, and claim interest at the rate of 12% per annum as originally awarded.

¶20

Thus, it is evident that the compromise between the parties is for payment of reduced interest by the appellant to the first respondent, provided that the entire payment of Rs.2,21,19,106/- is made and completed on or before May 18, 2021.

¶21

O.S.A.No.176 of 2021 is disposed of on the basis of the said memorandum of compromise dated April 23, 2021. C.M.P.No.8059 of 2021 is closed.

¶22

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

¶23

There will be no order as to costs. Let the compromise decree be drawn up as expeditiously as possible.

¶24

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To:
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side,
High Court, Madras.
+2cc to M/s.Ramesh Venkatachalapathy, Advocate Sr.25544
O.S.A.No.176 of 2021
vbm[co]
srg 27/04/2021

¶25

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

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. P.Janakiraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chairman and Managing Director, v. P.Janakiraman

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

The Chairman and Managing Director Vs P. Janakiraman

P.Balasubramanian Vs The Commissioner

Nithya Vs The State of Tamil Nadu rep by its

T.P.Subramanian Vs The Managing Director

Radha Industries Private Limited Vs Joseph Philips

J.Mohanraj Vs The District Collector