Disposed

Sathish @ Otta Sathish v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Madras HC27 Jan 2022CRL MP/200/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued a notice to the respondent under The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding the appointment of an arbitrator for a dispute arising from a consortium agreement dated 12.04.2012 between petitioner and respondent.

What did the court decide?

Issued notice to respondent to meet the petitioner and decide on appointment of an arbitrator.

Sathish @ Otta Sathish Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

/ 1 /

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

ARB .O.P(COM.DIV.) No.200 of 2022

¶7

In the matter of Arbitrtion and Conciliation Act, 1996

¶8

and

¶9

In the matter of Arbitration agreement dated 12.04.2012 Between M/s.DEE-TECH PROJECTS PVT.LTD. And M/S.BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LTD.,

¶10

*** M/S. DEETECH PROJECTS PVT.LTD.**

¶11

Rep.by its Managing Director, Mr. S.Sivaraman, No.129, 2nd Floor, Aani Street, Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai -600 092

¶12

*** (Amended as per order dated-28.4.2022 in A.No.1912/2022).**

¶13

..Petitioner

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

M/S.BATLIBOI ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING LTD., Represented by its Divisional Manager Mr. Vilas M. Gharat SPARTAN HOUSE, 1st Floor, Plot No. B/29, Road No.18/S,

¶16

..Respondent

¶17

/ 2 /

¶18

Wagle Estate, Thane (W) – 400604

¶19

Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) praying that this Hon'ble court be pleased to appoint an arbitrator for adjudicating the dispute arising between the applicant and respondent in respect to the work order that was awarded to the consortium vide LOA No. CMWSSB/CNT/C2/W/CNT/SEW/NCB/JNNURM/122/2010-2011, dated 21.11.2011.

¶20

This Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division)

¶21

coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:

¶22

Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb. OP' for

¶23

the sake of convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on

¶24

04.04.2022 with a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶25

2. Mr.A.Praveen Alexander, learned counsel for petitioner who is

¶26

before this Court submits that captioned Arb.OP is predicated on Clause 11 captioned 'DISPUTE' in an agreement captioned 'CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT dated 12.04.2012' (hereinafter 'primary contract' for the sake

¶27

/ 3 /

¶28

of convenience and clarity).

¶29

3. Clause 11 of primary contract serves as arbitration agreement between the petitioner and respondent i.e., arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] is learned counsel's say.

¶30

4. Learned counsel submits that primary contract was with regard to a tender floated by 'Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board' ['CMWSSB' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and work that has to be done thereunder. Learned counsel submits that primary contract ran into rough weather and arbitrable dispute erupted owing to alleged lack of interest on the part of the respondent leaving it to the petitioner to complete the project in full. It is not necessary to dilate further on arbitrable disputes as this is a Section 11 legal drill which has to perambulate within the statutory perimeter sketched by sub-section (6A) thereat. Suffice to say that a notice invoking arbitration being 'notice dated 12.03.2022' ('trigger notice' for the sake of convenience) was issued by the petitioner and this was duly served on the respondent on 17.03.2022. There has been no response from

¶31

the respondent necessitating the presentation of captioned Arb.OP in this Court on 04.04.2022 is learned counsel's further say.

¶32

/ 4 /

¶33

5 . Prima facie case for issue of notice made out.

¶34

6. Issue notice to respondent returnable by a fortnight i.e.,

¶35

returnable by 05.07.2022. Private notice permitted.

¶36

List on 05.07.2022.

¶37

Sd/.M.S.J. 21.06.2022

¶38

//Certified to be a true copy//

¶39

Dated at Madras this the day of 2022.

¶40

SU./28.06.2022 COURT OFFICER(O.S.)

¶41

From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.

Sathish @ Otta Sathish v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish @ Otta Sathish v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

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

K.Natarajan Vs M/S. Viswas Cotton Trading India Pvt. Ltd.

Syed Ibrahim @ Kurangu Syed Vs State Rep by

S.Balamurugan Vs State Rep by

Vijayakumar Vs Executive Magistrate

Kasilingam Vs the State Rep by

Ezhavendan Vs Inspector of Police