Dismissed¶33

T Ravichandran v. Parimala Raju

Madras HC20 Aug 2025Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/238/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 petitions dismissed for non-fulfilment of undertaking to amicably settle arbitral award claims; Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) Nos.238 & 244 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Justice Abdul Quddhose; arbitral awards dated 27.02.2023; orders dated 17.06.2025, 23.07.2025 and 11.08.2025; withdrawal of Vakalat by petitioners' counsel on 20.08.2025; sale of idle machinery and partnership firm property; no costs; no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

The withdrawal of the Vakalat by the petitioners' counsel made it clear that the petitioners were not interested in settling the claim of the respective 1st respondent through an amicable settlement. ¶31

T Ravichandran Vs Parimala Raju — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) Nos.238 & 244 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) Nos.238 & 244 of 2024

¶7

1.T.Ravichandran

¶8

2.P.Nepolian ... Petitioners in both petitions

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Parimala Raju ... 1^st respondent in Arb.O.P.No.238 of 2024 2.S.G.Natesan ... 1^st respondent in Arb.O.P.No.244 of 2024

¶11

3.M/s.Golden Fish Meal and Fish Oil Company, Plot No.1A, SF No.68 & 69, SIPCOT Complex, Semmenkuppam, Cuddalore – 607 005.

¶12

4.S.Shahul Hameed

¶13

5.N.Murugesan 6.M.Gajendiran ... Respondents 2 to 5 in both petitions

¶14

Prayer in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.238 of 2024: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Arbitrator.

¶15

Prayer in Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.244 of 2024: Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Arbitrator.

¶16

For Petitioners : No appearance (in both petitions)

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.M.Nandha Kumar [R1]

¶18

Page No.1 of 4

¶19

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

¶20

Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) Nos.238 & 244 of 2024

¶21

(in both petitions) Mr.S.Mohamed Uduman [R2, R3 & R5] Mr.K.T.S.Sivakumar [R4]

¶22

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act”) challenging the impugned arbitral awards dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Arbitrator.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners on record has filed the respective memo dated 20.08.2025 withdrawing his Vakalat. The said memos filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners are recorded. Accordingly, the Vakalat filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stands withdrawn.

¶26

As early as on 17.06.2025, based on the undertaking given by the petitioners as well as the respondents 2 to 5 that a joint effort will be made by the petitioners and the respondents 2 to 5 to sell the machineries which are now lying idle and also sell the immovable property standing in the name of the partnership firm and use the sale proceeds to discharge the claim of the respective 1^st respondent, these petitions are adjourned from time to time. It is made clear in the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by this Court that, in case, the claim of the respective 1^st respondent is not settled on or before the next hearing

¶27

Page No.2 of 4

¶28

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

¶29

Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) Nos.238 & 244 of 2024

¶30

date, this Court shall consider dismissing these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Act. As seen from the subsequent proceedings dated 23.07.2025 as well as on 11.08.2025, a long rope has been given by this Court for the petitioners as well as the respondents 2 to 5 to pay the dues to the respective 1^st respondent through an amicable settlement.

¶31

Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners on record had also withdrawn his Vakalat filed on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are not interested in settling the claim of the respective 1^st respondent through an amicable settlement. Since the undertaking given by the petitioners as well as the respondents 2 to 5, which has been recorded by this Court on 17.06.2025 has not been fulfilled, necessarily these petitions have to

¶32

be dismissed in accordance with the order passed by this Court on 17.06.2025.

¶33