Allowed

K Kathiravan v. M/s.Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd.

Madras HC26 Mar 2024Arb O.P/14/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11(6) petition seeking appointment of an arbitrator under clause 12(c) of a License Deed concerning damage to petitioner's property. Respondent did not dispute the arbitration clause. Court appointed a sole arbitrator with fees per the Fourth Schedule.

What did the court decide?

Sole arbitrator appointed to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute; fees per Fourth Schedule.

K Kathiravan Vs M/s.Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date 26.03.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

K.Kathiravan

... Petitioner

Versus

M/s.Tower Vision India Private Limited AMG Tower, Basement No.28, Lawyer Jagannathan Street Alandur, Chennai – 600 016

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶13

For petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy

¶14

For respondents : Mr.S.Dhakshnamoorthy

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner prays for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to resolve the

¶17

dispute between the petitioner and the respondent.

¶18

Page 1 / 4

¶19

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

¶20

Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

¶21

Pursuant to the License Deed dated 20.01.2021 entered between the

¶22

parties, it is the contention of the petitioner that as the dispute arose between the parties with regard to the damage to the petitioner's property, they are invoking arbitration.

¶23

The deed referred above makes it clear that in the event of any dispute between the parties, the same shall be referred to the arbitration as per clause 12(c) of the License Deed and clause 12(c) of the deed reads as follows:

¶24

“12

¶25

... (c) Dispute Resolution: Subject to applicable law, all dispute/differences relating to and/or arising out of this Deed and/or anything done in pursuance thereof shall be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed mutually by the Parties. The place of arbitration shall be at Chennai (the Circle office of the Licensee) and the arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and/or any amendments thereof, and decision of the sole arbitrator shall be binding on the Parties.”

¶26

Page 2 / 4

¶27

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

¶28

Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed with the arbitration clause.

¶30

Since, clause 12(c) of the License Deed provides for reference to the Arbitrator, this Court is inclined to appoint Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, Advocate, 186/294, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001, Mobile No.94449 09278 , as the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator is called upon to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute. The fees and expenses in respect of the arbitral proceedings shall be fixed by the arbitral tribunal as per the fourth schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶31

26.03.2024

¶32

Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order dhk

¶33

¶34

Mr.A.E.Ravichandran 186/294, Thambu Chetty Street Chennai – 600 001 Mobile No.94449 09278

¶35

Page 3 / 4

¶36

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

¶37

Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

¶38

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶39

dhk

¶40

order in: Arb.O.P.No.14 of 2024

¶41

26.03.2024

¶42

Page 4 / 4

¶43

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

K Kathiravan v. M/s.Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Kathiravan v. M/s.Tower Vision 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

Selvi Joseph Jesika Vs Vijaya

Gtl Infrastructure Limited Vs R Ram Kumar

Lakshmi Sankaramani and 2 Others Vs No Respondent

R.Srinivasan, Son of Late Rajagopal and 2 others Vs R.Ganesan son of Late Rajagopal and 3 others

S.Subramanian Vs Mrs.Rajeshwari Singh Muni and 1 other

M/s Johnson Lifts Private Limited Vs M/s Anta Builders And Developers Private Limited