Allowed

M/s Sun Edison Solar Power India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr.Kumar Pramendra

Madras HC7 Mar 2023A/2096/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking permission to file an email thread as an additional document, the court allowed the request subject to proof, admissibility, and relevance. The email was sought to rebut a claim of fundamental breach by the respondent regarding solar water pumps. Further objections were reserved for final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to file email dated 07.04.2014 as Additional Document Ex.C12 subject to proof, admissibility and relevance.

M/s Sun Edison Solar Power India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr.Kumar… — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Application No.2096 of 2021 in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.1 of 2021

¶2

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶3

The relief sought in this application is to permit the applicant herein to file e-mail thread dated 07.04.2014 as an Additional Document and mark the same as Ex.C12.

¶4

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant company has dispatched a bunch of Solar Water Pumps to the respondent with pumps of SHAKTI make and the respondent was well aware that the pumps comprised of components, however, before the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondent has stated that the supply of SHAKTI make water pumps was a fundamental breach of contract. Hence, without considering the claim of the applicant, the Arbitral Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition and passed the award in favour of the respondent.

¶5

2.1. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the respondent sent an e-mail dated 07.04.2014 to one Mr.Jha (official of the applicant company), a reading of which would clearly reveal that the respondent was very well aware of the components used to manufacture the solar water pumps supplied by the applicant, but, he suppressed the said fact before the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶6

2.2. The aforesaid e-mail is an important document to justify the claim of the applicant, but, the respondent did not disclose anything about

¶7

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

¶8

1/3

¶9

the said e-mail, before the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to permit the applicant to file the said e-mail thread as an Additional Document and mark the same as Ex.C12.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the applicant may be permitted to file the aforesaid e-mail thread as an additional document and mark the same as Ex.C12 only subject to its proof, admissibility and relevance.

¶11

Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the applicant is permitted to file the e-mail thread dated 07.04.2014 as an Additional Document and mark the same as Ex.C12 subject to its proof, admissibility and relevance. If any objection is raised by the respondent, the same would be considered by this Court at the time of final disposal of Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.1 of 2021.

¶12

This Application is allowed on the above terms.

¶13

07.03.2023

¶14

mrr

¶15

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

¶16

2/3

¶17

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶18

mrr

¶19

Application No.2096 of 2021 in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.1 of 2021

¶20

07.03.2023

¶21

3/3

¶22

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

M/s Sun Edison Solar Power India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr.Kumar Pramendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sun Edison Solar Power India Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr.Kumar Pramendra

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.Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs M/s.Century Super Speciality Hospitals Private Limited, Rep. by its Director

M/s.Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs M/s.Century Super Speciality Hospitals Private Limited, Rep. by its Director

M/s.Mercedes-Benz Financial Services India Private Limited Vs M/s.Century Super Speciality Hospitals Private Limited, Rep. by its Director

Prabhakar Naidu Nilaiahgari Vs M/s.Mercedes Benz Financial Services India Private Limited, Rep.by its Authorized Signatory

K.B.Prabhu, S/o. C.Balasubramanian, Vs v.Dinesh Prasad

Anil Damodar Patdukhe Vs M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.