Disposed

V.Jayakumar v. Teleperformance Business Services India Ltd.

Madras HC11 Aug 2023A/3372/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging an order allowing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court disposed of the matter on condition that the applicants paid a cost of Rs.15,000 to the Chief Justice Relief Fund within one week.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of on undertaking to pay Rs.15,000 to Chief Justice Relief Fund within one week; registry to number original petition after payment.

V.Jayakumar Vs Teleperformance Business Services India Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

A. No.3372 of 2023

¶2

A. No.3372 of 2023 in

¶3

Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) D. No.123207 of 2022

¶4

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶5

V. Jayakumar and another .. Applicants

¶6

vs.

¶7

Teleperformance Business Services India Ltd. ... Responden t

¶8

- - - - -

¶9

This application has been filed aggrieved by the order of the

¶10

learned Master, dated 30.03.2023 passed in A. No.1747 of 2023 in Arb O.P. (Com. Div.) Diary No.123207 of 2022.

¶11

The learned Master under the impugned order has allowed the application on condition that the applicant pays a cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of four weeks.

¶12

Application viz., A. No.1747 of 2023 was filed by the applicants

¶13

before the learned Master seeking to condone the delay of 69 days in representing the Original Petition filed by the applicants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to set aside an Arbitral Award.

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicants would now submit that

¶15

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

¶16

1/4

¶17

A. No.3372 of 2023

¶18

the applicants are now willing to pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Relief Fund, as directed by the learned Master in A. No.1747 of 2023, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said undertaking given by the applicants are recorded.

¶19

Since the applicants have undertaken to pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the learned Master under the impugned order, nothing survives for further adjudication in this application.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent has also not raised any

¶21

serious objection, if based on the undertaking given by the applicant, this application is disposed of.

¶22

In terms of the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the applicants on instructions that the applicants shall pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this application is disposed of.

¶23

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

¶24

2/4

¶25

A. No.3372 of 2023

¶26

Registry shall number the original petition filed by the

¶27

applicants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 if the same is otherwise in order after satisfying itself that the cost of Rs.15,000/- has been paid by the applicants to the Hon'ble Chief Justice Relief Fund, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

On numbering the original petition, Registry shall list the same for admission before this Court by printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve

¶30

copies of papers on the respondent counsel, once the O.P. is numbered.

¶31

11.08.2023

¶32

vsi2

¶33

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

¶34

3/4

¶35

A. No.3372 of 2023

¶36

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶37

vsi2

¶38

A. No.3372 of 2023 in Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) D. No.123207 of 2022

¶39

11.08.2023

¶40

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

¶41

4/4

V.Jayakumar v. Teleperformance Business Services India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Jayakumar v. Teleperformance Business Services India Ltd.

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 Chief Engineer, Highways, Nabard Vs Sri. Venkateswara Constructions

Lakshmi Estates, Vs M/s. Sivams Foundations

P.Santhosh Vs J.Kishore

CredAvenue Private Limited Vs Abinandan Singh and another

M/s Karnik Chemist, Rep.by Proprietor Anup Karnik, Vs Shriram Finance Limited

Same Deutz Fahr India Private Limited, Rep.by Mr.P.Ramesh, Vs Mr.Anmol Vitthal Abhang