Allowed

T.K.Usman Sarjun v. Emperor Entertainment, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.Irfan Malik

Madras HC25 Aug 2023Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/171/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator for a dispute arising from a Director Agreement. The court noted the arbitration clause and lack of party consensus on the arbitrator's name in an ex-parte order.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Mr. Vishnu Mohan as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute.

T.K.Usman Sarjun Vs Emperor Entertainment, Rep.by its Proprietor… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.08.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023 and A.No.3328 of 2023

T.K. Usman Sarjun

... Petitioner

Vs.

Emperor Entertainment, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.Irfan Malik, 26, Mahalakshmi Flats, 4A, 3^rd Floor, Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent

¶11

Prayer : Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties herein with respect of the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Vishvanth For Respondent : No appearance – Set exparte

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration

¶18

and Conciliation Act seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator by this

¶19

Court.

¶20

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Director for the feature film by name “Blood Money” by the respondent under a Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020. The petitioner claims that only a part of his remuneration was paid by the respondent as per the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020. According to the petitioner, a sum of Rs.23,16,000/is still due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner as per the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. There is an arbitration clause available in the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020, which is extracted

¶21

hereunder:-

¶22

“19.2 Any dispute/s and/or difference/s between the parties shall at first attempted to be resolved by mutual discussions between the parties hereto, failing which, such dispute/difference will be referred to arbitration

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶26

in accordance to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time, presided over by a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Madras High Court on an application moved by any one of the parties to this Agreement. Judgment upon the arbitral award may be entered in any competent court at Chennai having jurisdiction over the Parties or their assets. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at Chennai. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language. The parties shall bear the costs of arbitration equally. The award passed by the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. ”

¶27

3. The petitioner has also invoked arbitration in accordance with

¶28

the arbitration clause by issuing a notice to the respondent on 10.01.2023. The arbitration invocation notice dated 10.01.2023 has been returned with an endorsement 'No such person' as seen from the returned cover which has been filed as a document in the typed set of documents filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has also sent an email to the respondent on 17.01.2023. The petitioner has also filed his bank statements in the typed set of documents reflecting part

¶29

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

¶30

3/6

¶31

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶32

payment made by the respondent under the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020. There seems to be a dispute between the parties arising out of the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020. Since there is a valid arbitration clause available in the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020 and the petitioner has also invoked arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause by sending a notice to the respondent on 10.01.2023, there being no consensus between the parties with regard to the name of the Arbitrator, this Court has to necessarily appoint an Arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶33

4. The respondent has been duly served through substituted service. Despite effecting substituted service on the respondent, the respondent has failed to enter appearance in this petition. Earlier, the notices sent to the respondent in this petition was returned 'unserved' and only for the said reason, this Court had ordered substituted service on the respondent. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent till date, the respondent is set exparte by this Court.

¶34

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

¶35

4/6

¶36

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶37

5. For the foregoing reasons, this Court appoints Mr.Vishnu Mohan, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020. A ccordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is allowed as prayed for, by issuing the following directions:-

¶38

(a) This Court appoints Mr.Vishnu Mohan, Advocate, having office at No.8, 8 th Street, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004, as the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the Director Agreement dated 11.11.2020.

¶39

(b) The Arbitrator shall be paid his remuneration/fees in accordance with the IV Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

5/6

¶43

ARB.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶44

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶45

Sni

¶46

(d) The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration

¶47

in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall complete the arbitration within the specified time as prescribed under the said Act.

¶48

Connected application is closed.

¶49

25.08.2023

¶50

Index: Yes/ No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet: Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Sni

¶51

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div) No.171 of 2023

¶52

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

¶53

6/6

T.K.Usman Sarjun v. Emperor Entertainment, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.Irfan Malik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Usman Sarjun v. Emperor Entertainment, Rep.by its Proprietor, Mr.Irfan Malik

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

Srinivasa Rao Chintamaneni Vs IndusInd Bank Limited

M/s Sri.Chandraprabu Agency, Rep.by its Proprietor,Mr.Suresh Bafna, Vs B.Rajendra Kumar Jain

M/s.Era Infra Engineering Ltd(Eiel), Vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.

P.Esakkiappan Vs Dr.Sandeep Saxena IAS

Mr.Kamaraj Vs Vignesh

Mr.Kamaraj Vs Vignesh