Disposed¶29

Green Tech Star v. Tvs Credit Services Ltd.

Madras HC24 Mar 2025CMP/2997/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 92 days; arbitration appeal Arb.A.No.SR 173984 of 2024; C.M.P.No.2997 of 2025; Madras High Court; K.R. Shriram CJ; Mohammed Shaffiq J; Green Tech Star vs TVS Credit Services Ltd; Section 16 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; vacate stay; counter filed late before Arbitrator; appeal admission 07.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 92 days in filing the appeal condoned; application disposed of; appeal directed to be listed for admission on 07.04.2025. ¶29

Green Tech Star Vs Tvs Credit Services Ltd. — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.M.P.No.2997 of 2025 in Arb.A.No.SR 173984 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 24.03.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.K.R.SHRIRAM, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

¶8

C.M.P.No.2997 of 2025 in Arb.A.No.SR 173984 of 2024

¶9

Green Tech Star Rep by its Prop. Mrs. D. Bhavitha, S/D/W/o. V. Satish, 2nd Floor, C-51, 18th main, No.359, 4th Phase, 7th Block, Gururaja Layout, Bengalurur Urban, Karnataka 560085

¶10

Appellant(s)

¶11

¶12

TVS Credit Services Ltd., Rep by its managing Director, Having their office at Chaitanya, No.12, Khader Nawas Khan Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6. also at No.29, Jayalakshmi Estates, Third Floor, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 6 and 2 Others

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Rajesh Kumar for M/s.Nathan and Associates For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arunachalam for R1 R2 & R3 - No appearance

¶15

___________ Page 1 of 3_

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.No.2997 of 2025 in Arb.A.No.SR 173984 of 2024

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶20

Mr.Arunachalam opposes the application for condoning the delay of

¶21

92 days in filing the appeal and is filing an affidavit in reply. Registry to take the same on record for completion of records.

¶22

Shri Rajesh Kumar states that he was served a copy only today. Shri. Arunachalam states that applicant has filed an application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned Arbitrator and in that also, has prayed for vacating the stay granted.

¶23

There is an affidavit of service filed through one Rajesh Kumar, affirmed on 20.03.2025, in which it is stated that respondents 2 and 3 have been served on 10.03.2025 and 11.03.2025 respectively. Both have not entered appearance though served.

¶24

Having considered the affidavit in support of the application,

¶25

___________ Page 2 of 3_

¶26

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

¶27

C.M.P.No.2997 of 2025 in Arb.A.No.SR 173984 of 2024

¶28

particularly in view of the fact that it is not denied that a counter was filed by applicant though it reached the Arbitrator late, we are inclined to condone the delay.

¶29