Mr. K.Gunasekaran @ Kumar v. Mr. K.Perumal
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court at Madras disposed of an Arbitration Original Petition filed for the appointment of a sole arbitrator. The Court noted the existence of an arbitration agreement in a partnership deed. While some procedural questions regarding the parties' names and the firm's dissolution were raised, the Court appointed a retired judge to adjudicate the disputes under the Arbitration and Conciliatio
What did the court decide?
Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Bharathidasan (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator at the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre.
What the court decided
Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.198 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 13.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
Arb O.P.(Com. Div.) No.198 of 2022
Mr.M.Gunasekaran @ Kumar
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Mr.K.Perumal
2.Sri Baktha Krishna Bricks Partnership Firm Represented by K.Perumal No.18, Perumal Agaram Thiruverkadu Post Thiruverkadu Chennai – 600 077. ... Respondents
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as amended by the Arbitration and Conciliation Amendment Act, 2019, praying to pass a order appointing an arbitrator to decide the disputes and claims emerged between the petitioner and the respondents as per the partnership deed dt. 01.03.1997 in accordance with law on merits.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the arbitration agreement contained in Clause 21 of the primary contract is valid and enforceable.
Whether the petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator is maintainable in the facts and circumstances.
Whether any dispute regarding limitation bars the pendency of the reference.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.Gunasekaran @ Kumar
- respondent
K.Perumal
- respondent
Baktha Krishna Bricks Partnership Firm
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court