Dismissed¶31

Sri Ram Colours, v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Madras HC2 Dec 2025Arb Appeal/65/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arbitration appeal dismissed; interim order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by sole arbitrator (Arbitration Case Number SADRF/CSS/KMBL/BL/ARB/L-06/204/2025, dated 29.05.2025) left undisturbed pending final adjudication; parallel complaint case before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta (Complaint Case No.380530 of 2025) instituted by Kotak Mahindra Bank after initiation of arbitration; grounds to be urged before arbitrator; Madras High Court, 02-12-2025; Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025; 2025:MHC:2791.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to place all grounds before the arbitrator for final adjudication. ¶31

Sri Ram Colours, Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to place all grounds before the arbitrator for final adjudication.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case Number SADRF/CSS/KMBL/BL/ARB/L-06/204/2025 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ought to be set aside and the arbitration appeal allowed. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In the opinion of this Court, the impugned interim order issuing directions was passed to protect the interest of the parties during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The appellant may place all the facts before the Arbitrator for taking the final decision, and the grounds raised (including the parallel complaint case) deserve consideration by the Arbitrator for passing appropriate final orders in the arbitration proceedings already initiated.

¶26

Key takeaways

The interim order was passed to maintain a balance between the claimant and the opposite party.ratio¶30
The appellant is at liberty to place all the grounds before the arbitrator for final adjudication, and the arbitrator shall pass orders on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶30
The Arbitration Appeal is dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025, decided 02-12-2025; S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan JJ.; order authored by S.M. Subramaniam J.; Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:2791) dismissed an arbitration appeal challenging an interim order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case Number SADRF/CSS/KMBL/BL/ARB/L-06/204/2025 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Counsel for the appellants (Sri Ram Colours and others) pointed out that respondent Kotak Mahindra Bank had instituted Complaint Case No.380530 of 2025 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta on the very same claim, after initiation of the arbitration proceedings. The Court held that the interim order protected the parties' interests during pendency and maintained a balance between claimant and opposite party, left all grounds — including the parallel complaint — to the arbitrator for final adjudication on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, dismissed the appeal, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶1

2025:MHC:2791

¶2

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 02-12-2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶8

Sri Ram Colours, No.3, 328, Vinayagar Kovil Street, Erode -641 605.

¶9

D.Duraisamy

¶10

Selvaraj

¶11

Appellant(s)

¶12

¶13

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Having its Registered Office at 27BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai -400 051. Having Branch Office at No.402-L, Samson Tower, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai -600 008.

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

To set aside the Order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Arbitration Case Number SADRF/CSS/KMBL/BL/ARB/L-06/204/2025, on the file of the Sole Arbitrator, set aside the same and thereby allow this appeal as prayed for and pass further suitable orders that may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶17

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

¶18

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶19

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Ramakrishnan

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶22

Present arbitration appeal has been instituted challenging the interim

¶23

order passed by sole arbitrator under Section 17 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶24

st 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that 1

¶25

respondent/claimant bank has already instituted a proceeding before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta in Complaint Case No.380530 of 2025, in respect of the very same claim, and said petition has been instituted after initiation of proceedings under Arbitration Act.

¶26

If so, appellant may place all the facts before Arbitrator for taking final decision. Grounds raised in this regard deserves to be considered by Arbitrator for passing appropriate final orders in the Arbitration proceedings already initiated based on the petition filed by 1^st respondent/claimant.

¶27

As far as impugned interim order is concerned, in order to protect the interest of parties during pendency of arbitration proceedings, directions are issued, and in the opinion of this Court, said interim order is passed, in order

¶28

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

¶29

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶30

to maintain a balance between the claimant and opposite party. That being the factum, appellant is at liberty to place all the grounds before the arbitrator for final adjudication, and pass orders on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

With the above observations, the Arbitration Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶32

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 02-12-2025

¶33

gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶34

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

¶35

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶36

¶37

1.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Having its Registered Office at 27BKC, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai -400 051. Having Branch Office at No.402-L, Samson Tower, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai -600 008.

¶38

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

¶39

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶40

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN J.

¶41

¶42

Arb Appeal No. 65 of 2025

¶43

02-12-2025

¶44