Mysore Sales International Limited Vs Vaata Smart Limited

Vaata Smart Limited (Formerly Vaata Infra Limited and previously Wescare India Limited) Rep. by its Authorized Representative Mr.V.R.Raghunathan Having its Old Office at Wescare Towers No.16, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Chennai-600018 and Presently at No.7, 11 th Avenue Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600083. …Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Arbitration Application filed under Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules read with Order XXXVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to direct the respondent /applicant to hand

¶12

Page 1 of 8

¶13

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

¶14

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶15

over the 6 wind turbines of 250 kw of Das Lagerway make comprising of the tower, Nacelle, Generators blades, control panel, transformer, towertop, cross angle, Main angle, Ladder, platform, fastners, cable wires, etc., and more fully described in the schedule to the applicant /respondent.

¶16

For Applicant : Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent : Mr.Adithya Sarangarajan

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This application has been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration

¶19

and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to direct the respondent to handover

¶20

custody of 6 wind turbines of 250 kw morefully described in the schedule

¶21

to the judges summons of this application to the applicant /respondent.

¶22

2. The following are the undisputed facts:-

¶23

The arbitral award passed in favour of the respondent against the applicant has attained finality. In the Original Petitions filed by the applicant and the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a

¶24

common order dated 10.01.2023 came to be passed. While

¶25

Page 2 of 8

¶26

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

¶27

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶28

dismissing the Original Petitions, a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court permitting the applicant to take custody of the windmills, which are the subject matter of the arbitral award and to bring the same for sale and appropriate the sale proceeds. By the very same order, leave was also granted to the applicant to file an appropriate application before this Court to seek custody of the subject windmills, which are also disclosed in the schedule to the judges summon of this application. In the aforesaid order dated 10.01.2023 passed by this Court in O.P. No.519 of 2016 and Arbitration O.P. (Comm.Div.) No.242 of 2021, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out to the Court that the subject windmills have been dismantled and they are in the custody of Advocate Commissioner.

¶29

3. This Court has perused the Advocate Commissioner's report dated 15.03.2012. The Advocate Commissioner is also present before

¶30

Page 3 of 8

¶31

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

¶32

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶33

this Court today. As seen from the Advocate Commissioner's report, the Advocate Commissioner had only taken inventory of windmills, which are the subject matter of this application and she had neither repossessed the windmills nor handed over custody of the same to anyone. Therefore, the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent as recorded in the Court's order dated 10.01.2023 that the windmills were dismantled and are in the custody of the Advocate Commissioner is incorrect.

¶34

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, would

¶35

submit that the windmills, which are the subject matter of this application, are presently not available with the respondent. However, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the respondent alone is responsible for handing over the custody of the subject windmills to the applicant as per the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by this Court in O.P. No.519 of 2016 and Arbitration O.P. (Comm.Div.) No.242 of 2021. The operative portion of the aforesaid order is reproduced hereunder:-

¶36

“24. One last issue merits consideration. Learned

¶37

Page 4 of 8

¶38

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

¶39

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶40

counsel for MSIL pointed out that the windmills were dismantled and are in the custody of an Advocate Commissioner. He also pointed out that MSIL is entitled to these windmills as the owner thereof. As the owner of the windmills, although the value thereof would have reduced considerably by now, MSIL is entitled to take custody of the windmills and either retain and use the windmills or bring the same for sale so as to appropriate the sale proceeds. By leaving it open to MSIL to file an appropriate application for such purpose, both these petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.”

¶41

5. When the arbitral award has attained finality and the respondent,

¶42

who was the claimant in the arbitration, has already filed an Execution Petition to execute the arbitral award, this Court, at this stage after a lapse of more than 13 years from the date when the Advocate Commissioner took inventory of the subject windmills, that too, in an

¶43

Page 5 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶46

application filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot grant relief either to the applicant or to the respondent. The only remedy available to the applicant that in case they have suffered losses on account of the non-return of windmills as directed by this Court in its order dated 10.01.2023 passed in O.P. No.519 of 2016 and Arbitration O.P. (Comm.Div.) No.242 of 2021 is to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶47

6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that if

¶48

such a liberty is granted to the applicant, liberty may also be granted to the respondent to raise all objections, which they have raised through their counter filed before this Court in Section 9 application in the appropriate proceedings to be initiated by the applicant against the respondent. After recording the aforesaid facts, this application is disposed of by granting liberty to the applicant to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent for the non-return of the windmills, which are the subject matter of this application, which were directed to be returned to the applicant by this Court's order dated

¶49

Page 6 of 8

¶50

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

¶51

Arbitration Application No. 551 of 2025 in Application No. 161 of 2012

¶52

10.01.2023 passed in O.P. No.519 of 2016 and Arbitration O.P. (Comm.Div.) No.242 of 2021 in accordance with law and liberty is also granted to the respondent to raise all objections that have been raised in the counter filed in this application in the proceedings that may be initiated in the near future against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶53

7. With the above observations, this application is closed. No

¶54

costs.

¶55

01.07.2025

¶56

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No

¶57

Maya

¶58

Page 7 of 8