M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and Transport, Vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

¶1

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025 &

¶7

C.M.P.Nos.22580, 22581 & 22582 of 2025

¶8

M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and Transport, Represented by its Sole Proprietor P.Sivakumar, No.54, GVT Complex, Varatharajapuram, Nagathamman Nagar, Poonamallee, Chennai -600 123 2. Shunmuga Devi S .... Appellants

¶9

Vs

¶10

Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited, No.27A, Developed Industrial ... Respondent Estate, Guindy, Chennai -600 032.

¶11

Page 1 of 7

¶12

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

¶13

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025

¶14

Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Indian Centre for Industrial Commercial Arbitration at Chennai, comprising of a Sole Arbitrator in I.A. No.662 of 2024 in A.C.P. No.426 of 2024.

¶15

For Appellant(s): Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar for Mr.B.Kishore of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm)

¶16

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arunachalam

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of the Court was made by M.Sundar J.)

¶19

Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar, learned counsel representing

¶20

Mr.B.Kishore of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm) for appellant and

¶21

Mr.M.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the sole respondent agreed to

¶22

have the main appeal heard out owing to the trajectory the matter has

¶23

taken.

¶24

Post order under Section 17 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation

¶25

Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of

¶26

convenience and clarity] i.e., order dated 05.01.2025 made by 'Arbitral

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

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

¶29

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025 Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity), the respondents before AT (who

¶30

are appellants before us) moved the Arbitration Court under Section 14 of A and C Act, more particularly Section 14(2) of A and C Act seeking termination of the mandate of the AT primarily predicating their argument on Perkins principle i.e., principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architect DPC and Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. reported in (2020) 20 SCC 760 . To be noted, Perkins principle simply stated is one that forbids unilateral appointment. Hon'ble single Judge of this Court accepted the argument, applied Perkins principle and terminated the mandate in and by an order dated 05.08.2025.

¶31

On instructions, Mr.M.Arunachalam submitted that the sole

¶32

respondent accepts the Section 14 (2) order of the Arbitration Court and

¶33

on that basis has filed a petition under Section 11 of A and C act vide

¶34

TNCT0455I2538S741 and a scanned reproduction of the e-Court fee

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025 receipt in this regard as placed before us by learned counsel is as follows:

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025

¶41

As mandate of the AT which made the impugned order dated

¶42

07.01.2025 has since been terminated, this Court has no difficulty in writing that the impugned order also will now have to be effaced without expressing any view one way or the other on the merits of the impugned

¶43

order. On the same basis, we make it clear that pending Section 11 petition and pending constitution of AT, it is open to both sides, be it appellants or the respondent before us, to move the Section 9 Court for suitable orders as Section 9 petition can be filed even before commencement of arbitral proceedings. If this course is adopted, Section

¶44

9 Court will consider the application on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammeled by instant order of this Division Bench. All questions are left open for this purpose.

¶45

Learned counsel for appellants submits that pursuant to the

¶46

order of AT, the vehicles have been repossessed and the appellants are

¶47

under imminent threat of the same being put to sale by the respondents.

¶48

Page 5 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025

¶51

We make it clear that we are not expressing any view or opinion either

¶52

on the repossession or the threat of sale as that will be left to be decided

¶53

either by the Section 9 Court or by the AT in a Section 17 legal drill.

¶54

In the event of the same prayer being made by way of Section 17

¶55

application before AT to be constituted vide Section 11 proceedings, it

¶56

will be equally open to AT to consider the matter on its own merits and

¶57

in accordance with law dehors the instant judicial order.

¶58

7. As the impugned order stands effaced, in the light of the

¶59

trajectory the matter has taken, we deem it appropriate to write that captioned appeal is disposed of as closed with preservation of rights of both sides in the manner alluded to supra albeit with observations made supra. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.) gpa 10.09.2025

¶61

Page 6 of 7

¶62

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

¶63

Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025

¶64

M.SUNDAR J. AND MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.

¶65

gpa