Allowed¶23

M/S Marina Holdings v. N.Ramasamy

Madras HC22 Jan 2025A/208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Extension of arbitral mandate — Section 29(4), Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — six-month extension from 10.01.2025 — proceedings before sole arbitrator at advanced trial stage — no inordinate delay by parties or tribunal — satisfaction with reasons in supporting affidavit — respondent unrepresented despite pass-over, matter taken at 02.35 P.M. — Madras High Court, 22-01-2025, P.B. Balaji J. — M/s Marina Holdings v. N. Ramasamy (Sri Thenandal Films).

What did the court decide?

Extension of the mandate of the arbitral tribunal by a further period of six months from 10.01.2025. ¶23

M/S Marina Holdings Vs N.Ramasamy — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

A NO. 208 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-01-2025

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI A No. 208 of 2025

¶4

M/s Marina Holdings Represented by its Partner Mr.Rajkumarsethupathy, Level 7A,Capital Towers, 555,Anna Salai,Teynampet Chennai-18.

Applicant(s)

N.Ramasamy

Proprietor,Sri Thenandal Films No.8,80 feet Road, Devar Garden,Saligramam,Chennai-600093. Also at N.Ramasamy Proprietor,Sri Thenandal Films No.19,Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram,Chennai600034.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

For Applicant(s):

¶11

Ms.RUGAN AND ARYA J.Srinivasan 9840331510

¶12

For Respondent(s):

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This application has been filed under Section 29(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of mandate of the arbitral tribunal by further period of six months.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Though the learned counsel for the respondent's name has been printed in the cause list and the matter was also passed-over to enable the learned counsel for the respondent to appear and make a submission, there is no

¶17

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

¶18

P.B.BALAJI,J.,

¶19

rna

¶20

representation on the side of the respondent, even when the matter is taken at 02.35 P.M.

¶21

The proceedings before the sole arbitrator are at the stage of advanced

¶22

trial and the extension sought for is for the conclusion if the proceedings. I do not find any inordinate delay either on the parties or the arbitral tribunal's part. I am satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application necessitating for extension of time and time is extended for a further period of six months.

¶23

This application is allowed and favourable to the applicant and

¶24

extension by six months from 10.01.2025.

¶25

22-01-2025

¶26

To 1. N.Ramasamy Proprietor,Sri Thenandal Films No.8,80 feet Road, Devar Garden,Saligramam,Chennai-600093. Also at N.Ramasamy Proprietor,Sri Thenandal Films No.19,Saraswathi Street, Mahalingapuram,Chennai-600034.

¶27

A No. 208 of 2025

¶28

22.01.2025

¶29

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

M/S Marina Holdings v. N.Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Marina Holdings v. N.Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Capital Limited Vs M/s.Hotel Arunachala

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Rajesh T.K. and another

P.Jesuraj Vs M/S.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Rukmani Duraisamy Vs M/s.Sepc Limited

All in Pictures Vs Gautham Vasudev Menon

G Khaisar Abrar Vs Saagar Foundations Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director R Krishnamoorthy