Allowed

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, v. Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC21 Dec 2023Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/277/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Madras High Court appointed a retired judge as a sole arbitrator after noting the respondent's default and failure to appear despite substituted service of notice.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Kalaiyarasan (Retd) as sole Arbitrator; Original Petition allowed.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, Vs Go Green Motors India… — Arbitration | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.12.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶7

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr.Noyal James, registered office at 11^th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Branch office at, 1^st Floor, Centennial Square, 6A, Dr.Ambedkar Salai, Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Go Green Motors India Private Limited, Plot No.-20, 21, Kodapur Road, Gachibowli “X” Roads, Hyderabad – 500 032.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

¶13

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

¶14

1/5

¶15

Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶16

For Petitioner : M/s.Abitha Banu For Respondent : Pvt. Notice – Left without instructions Court Notice – Returned Paper Publication effected

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute arisen between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

¶19

The respondent has availed a loan from the petitioner and therefore appears to be defaulted by the respondent. The petitioner has also recalled the agreements on various dates and it appears that the respondent is in arrears of Rs.20,00,000/-. Notice that was earlier ordered by this Court on the respondent has remains “unserved” and therefore liberty was given to the petitioner to effect paper publication.

¶20

In this case, a substituted service of notice through paper publication was ordered on 29.09.2023. The time for effecting the paper publication was extended by an order dated 02.11.2023, pursuant to which, the petitioner has also effected paper publication on 07.11.2023. Despite the same, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶21

Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶22

respondent is not come forward to appear either in person or through a counsel. There is a deemed service of notice. Considering the fact that the respondent

¶23

has failed to respond the notice issued under Section 21 and to the notice ordered in this case it has to be construed that the respondent has forfeited their rights.

¶24

Considering the same, Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Kalaiyarasan (Retd), Former Judge of this Court , (Mobile No.:9942421667) residing at Plot No.64, 3^rd cross street, CBI Colony, Kandanchavadi, Chennai – 96, is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.

¶25

The learned Arbitrator appointed herein, shall after issuing notice to the parties and upon hearing them, endeavour to complete the arbitral proceedings and pass an award strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of twelve months after the date of completion of pleadings under SubSection 4 to Section 23 as is contemplated in Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, without getting influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order.

¶26

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

¶27

3/5

¶28

Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶29

The learned Arbitrator appointed herein shall be paid fees and other incidental charges as may be fixed with the consent of parties or in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the same shall be borne by the parties equally. In case, the respondent remain ex parte , the petitioner shall pay the entire fee and other incidental charges to the Arbitrator and later recover the same from the respondent.

¶30

The parties are at liberty to workout the venue for Arbitration at

¶31

Chennai.

¶32

The Original Petition is allowed with the above observations, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶33

9. Since the Court has appointed an Arbitrator, it is open to the petitioner as well as the respondent to seek other reliefs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned Arbitrator.

¶34

21.12.2023

¶35

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No jas

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶37

Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.277 of 2023

¶38

Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.).No.277 of 2023

C.SARAVANAN, J.

jas

21.12.2023

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

¶43

5/5

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, v. Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited, v. Go Green Motors India Pvt. 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

V.Balasubramanian Vs Nathan Foundation Pvt. Ltd.

Shriram Finance Limited Vs Shobha Asar Pvt. Ltd.

Sociedade Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s Emirates Trading Agency Llc

M/S.Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs Ganesh Pandurang Mali and 2 others

M/S.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s.Tirupathi Construction Company

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. Vs Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd.