Partly allowed

Rosewood Projects Private v. Imeco Limited

Madras HC9 Jul 2024OP/622/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to arbitral award confined to the interest component. The Court modified the award by refixing uniform interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,46,216/- from 08.07.2002 till payment, leaving the rest of the award unaltered, and partly allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Interest on Rs.1,46,216/- refixed at 9% p.a. from 08.07.2002 till date of payment; award otherwise left unaltered.

Rosewood Projects Private Vs Imeco Limited — Arbitration | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

O.P.No.622 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

O.P. No.622 of 2011

¶7

Rosewood Projects Private Limited, Rep by its Director, formerly at A-90,Lake Gardens, Kolkata-700 045 and now at 63/1, Charu Chandra Place (E), Kolkota-700 033.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

Imeco Limited, 26, R.N.Mukherjee Road, Kolkatta 700 001 And is carrying on business Through its division "T & T" Drillin Solutions 32, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

¶11

2.The Sole Arbitrator Mr.N.V.Balasubramaniam, No.40, Sankarapuram, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 14.12.2010

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

O.P.No.622 of 2011

¶17

(received on 14.12.2010) of Sole Arbitrator.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Jeyasankar

¶19

For Respondents : No appearance

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner

¶22

challenging the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 14.12.2010.

¶23

2.Though several grounds have been raised by the Petitioner in the

¶24

present petition, the learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that he will restrict his claim with regard to the one pertaining to interest component alone, fixed by the learned Arbitrator.

¶25

Though notice was served on the first Respondent and the first Respondent also entered appearance through counsel, none appeared on their behalf. This shows that the first Respondent is not interested to prosecute the case.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

O.P.No.622 of 2011

¶29

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶30

A perusal of the Award dated 14.12.2010 passed by the learned

¶31

Arbitrator shows that the learned Arbitrator, while answering the issue No.5, has passed the following order:

¶32

" In so far as this issue is concerned, I hold that the claimant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs.1,46,216/- from 08.07.2002 till date and at the rate of 7 ½ % p.a. on Rs.1,46,216/- from this date till the date of payment."

¶33

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶34

Petitioner, this Court is inclined to refix the interest component @ 9% for the sum of Rs.1,46,216/- from 08.07.2002 till 14.12.2010 and 9% for the sum of Rs.1,46,216/- from 14.12.2010 till the date of payment.

¶35

Accordingly, the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator is

¶36

modified to the extent indicated above. It is made clear that except this modification, the order of the Arbitrator remains unaltered.

¶37

3/4

¶38

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

¶39

O.P.No.622 of 2011

¶40

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶41

arr

¶42

In the result, this Original Petition is partly allowed.

¶43

09.07.2024

¶44

arr

¶45

O.P. No.622 of 2011

¶46

4/4

¶47

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

O.P.No.622 of 2011

08.07.2024

5/4

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

Rosewood Projects Private v. Imeco Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosewood Projects Private v. Imeco Limited

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 Office of the Official Liquidator, Vs nil

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Sugumar v and another

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Vasanthi M

N Sridhar Vs Shriram Finance Limited Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Finance company limited

The Project Director Vs M/S.Rccl Expressway Private Limited

M/s.Kanchanjanga Securities Company Pvt. Limited Vs M/s.Dugar Housing Limited