Vidvedaa Prg Aero and Ports Voyage Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

Vidvedaa Prg Aero and Ports Voyage Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Director — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty as prayed for to the appellant to approach the learned Arbitrator for a direction whether it could give a bank guarantee for the whole or part of the Rs.35 crores instead of depositing the amount; appeal dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs and the interim application closed.

Ratio / Principle

The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for to the appellant to approach the learned Arbitrator for a direction whether it could give a bank guarantee for the whole or part of the Rs.35 crores instead of depositing that amount; there shall be no order as to costs and the connected interim application (C.M.P.No.2706 of 2025) is closed.

Key takeaways

On the question whether the appellant could give a bank guarantee for the whole or part of the directed deposit in place of depositing Rs.35 crores, the court deliberately expressed no opinion: it stated that it is open to the appellant to apply, open to the respondent to oppose any such application, and that the Arbitrator will pass suitable orders if an application is made.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (judgment delivered by K.R.Shriram, Chief Justice, with Mohammed Shaffiq, J.) dismissed as withdrawn Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025 (with C.M.P.No.2706 of 2025), an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act brought by M/s.Vidvedaa PRG Aero and Ports Voyage Private Limited against the Director, Airport Authority of India, challenging an interim award dated 19.01.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No.8 of 2024, under which the appellant was directed to deposit Rs.35 crores under paragraph 7(i). After partial hearing, appellant's counsel (T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel) sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the Arbitrator for a direction whether the appellant could furnish a bank guarantee for the whole or part of the amount instead of the deposit. The Bench granted the liberty, stating it was open to the appellant to apply and to the respondent to oppose, and that the Arbitrator would pass suitable orders on any such application, while expressly expressing no opinion on the leave sought; the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and the interim application was closed.

Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.02.2025

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

Arb. Appeal No.8 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.2706 of 2025

M/s.Vidvedaa PRG Aero and Ports Voyage Private Limited, rep. by its Director, Vanchinathan Thangavel, Olympia Teknos Park, Level-4, Plot No.28, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.

... Appellant

Vs.

The Director, Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai-600 016.

... Respondent

Prayer : Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act against the interim award dated 19.01.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No.8 of 2024.

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

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

Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025

For Appellant : Mr.T.Gowthaman Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthucharan Sundresh For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Rajkumar Jhebakh

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

After the appeal was heard for some time, learned counsel, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to approach the learned Arbitrator for a direction as to whether appellant could instead of depositing the amount of Rs.35 crores as directed under paragraph 7(i) of the order dated 19.1.2025, give a bank guarantee for the whole amount or part of the amount.

It is open to appellant to apply and it is open to respondent to oppose any such application and the Arbitrator will pass suitable orders, if an application is made. We express no opinion.

Page 2 of 4

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

Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025

We hasten to add, at the cost of repetition, that we have not

expressed any opinion on this leave sought by Shri Gowthaman.

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. There

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim application is closed.

(K.R.SHRIRAM, C.J.) (MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.) 24.02.2025 Index : Yes/No NC : Yes/No sasi

To: The Sub Assistant Registrar Original Side, High Court, Madras.

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

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

Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.

(sasi)

Arb.Appeal No.8 of 2025

24.02.2025

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

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