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

and Transport, Represented by its Sole Proprietor P.Sivakumar, No.54, GVT Complex, Varatharajapuram, Nagathamman Nagar, Poonamallee, Chennai -600 123. and another

¶12

Shunmuga Devi S W/o.P.Sivakumar, No.67, 9th Street, Kamaraja Nagar, Avadi, ... Petitioners Thiruvallur, Chennai -600 071.

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

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

¶15

CMP No. 21133 of 2025 in Arb Appeal (SR) No.92212 of 2025

¶16

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

¶17

Vs

¶18

... Respondent

¶19

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to pass an order to condone the delay of 103 days in filing the instant Arbitration Appeal filed 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.661 of 2024 in A.C.P. No.425 of 2024.

¶20

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

¶21

For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arunachalam

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

Captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Petition' ['CMP' for the sake of

¶25

brevity] has been filed with a 'Condonation of Delay' ['CoD' for the sake

¶26

of brevity] prayer seeking condonation of 103 days delay in filing

¶27

captioned appeal, which is directed against an order dated 07.01.2025

¶28

Page 2 of 5

¶29

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

¶30

CMP No. 21133 of 2025 in Arb Appeal (SR) No.92212 of 2025

¶31

made by a 'Arbitral Tribunal' ['AT' for the sake of brevity] inter alia

¶32

permitting repossession and sale of vehicles (we are informed that they

¶33

are tipper trucks) which are subject matter of arbitration.

¶34

As regards CoD prayer, Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar, learned counsel representing Mr.B.Kishore of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm) submits that there was lapse in communication between erstwhile counsel before AT and the client but this is opposed by Mr.M.Arunachalam, learned counsel for respondent and learned counsel

¶35

adverting to impugned order i.e., order made by AT vide Section 17 'The

¶36

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter

¶37

'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity] submitted that the petitioners have participated and were even given time to file counter

¶38

affidavit but they have not filed a counter affidavit.

¶39