Disposed

S.Senthil Kumar v. The Executive Engineer

Madras HC10 Mar 2022OA/243/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of Original Applications under Section 9 and an Arbitration Reference under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court appointed a sole arbitrator as the existence of the arbitration agreement was undisputed and extended an interim status-quo order by four more weeks.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mrs.V.Usha Rani as Sole Arbitrator; extension of status-quo order until 07.04.2022.

S.Senthil Kumar Vs The Executive Engineer — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶2

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶3

M.SUNDAR, J.,

¶4

This common order will dispose of captioned three Original Applications and captioned Arb OP.

¶5

2. Captioned Arb OP has been presented in this Court on 25.03.2021 under Section 11(6) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] with a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator. Suffice to say that Arb OP is predicated on an 'agreement dated 30.04.2015 between the petitioner and respondent for Augmentation of Water Supply System at Thondamanatham Village, Villianur Commune, Puducherry' [hereinafter 'said agreement' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Arbitrable disputes have erupted and the arbitration agreement has been triggered.

¶6

3. It is not necessary to dilate any further on facts as there is no disputation or disagreement between the parties about the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties qua aforementioned agreement. Learned State counsel for respondent in captioned Arb OP i.e., Ms.V.Usha, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry), (represented by

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1/4

¶8

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶9

V.P.Chamuraj, learned counsel in Court) submits on instructions that the existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed and therefore, a sole Arbitrator can be appointed at the discretion/choice of this Court.

¶10

4. This Court is informed that the claim is in the region of Rs.11 Lakhs.

¶11

5. In the light of there being no disputation about the existence of arbitration agreement, Mrs.V.Usha Rani, Advocate, residing at No.21, Lakshmi Nagar, 2 nd Main Road, Chembakkam, Chennai-600 073 (Mobile:98400 96812)

¶12

(email: [email protected]) is appointed as Sole Arbitrator.

¶13

6. Learned Arbitrator is requested to enter upon reference and adjudicate the arbitrable disputes that have arisen between the parties by holding sitting at 'Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court' ['MHAC'] in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017 and learned Arbitrator's fee shall be as per Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees), Rules 2017. To be noted, Clause 25 of aforesaid agreement is the arbitration clause and it does not mention anything about the Seat/Venue. Therefore this course is adopted.

¶14

7. As arbitrator has now been appointed and as Section 9 applications (captioned 3 applications) have already been entertained by this Court and

¶15

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

¶16

Page No.2/4

¶17

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶18

interim order of status-quo has been granted, the same shall continue for four more weeks from today i.e., upto 07.04.2022.

¶19

8. In the interregnum it is open to the respondent in captioned Arb OP (applicant in captioned Section 9 applications) to make similar/same prayer before learned sole Arbitrator. If this course is adopted, learned Arbitrator shall consider the same, as an application under Section 17 of A and C Act and deal with the same on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶20

9. Captioned three applications are disposed of in the aforesaid manner.

¶21

Captioned Arb OP is also being disposed of in and by this order in the aforesaid

¶22

manner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

10.03.2022

¶24

kmi/nsa

¶25

Note : Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to 1. Mrs.V.Usha Rani, Advocate, No.21, Lakshmi Nagar, 2 nd Main Road, Chembakkam, Chennai-600 073. (Mobile:98400 96812) (email: [email protected]) .

¶26

The Director, Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Center cum-Ex Officio Member, Madras High Court, Arbitration Centre, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.

¶27

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

¶28

Page No.3/4

¶29

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶30

M.SUNDAR, J., kmi/nsa

¶31

O.A.Nos.243, 244 & 245 of 2021 and Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.187 of 2021

¶32

10.03.2022

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4/4

S.Senthil Kumar v. The Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Senthil Kumar v. The Executive Engineer

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.Interarch Building Products Pvt. Ltd,Rep.by its Authorised Representative Mr.Subodh Kumar Sharma Vs M/s Shri Kailash Logistics Chennai Ltd.

M/s.Gympac Ventures Pvt. Ltd, Represented by its authorised signatory Vs M/s Agr Fitness, Represented by its partner

M/s.P and C Projects Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Authorised Signatory Mr.M.a.Syed Sirajudeen Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Commisioner

M/s Coronation Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd.

m/s.Coronation Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd., Rep.by Mr. Sri Krishna, Manager (legal)

m/s.Coronation Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sundaram Finance Ltd., Rep.by Mr. Sri Krishna, Manager (legal)