Disposed¶44

Tittu Kumar Velu v. Shankar Kumar Velu

Madras HC4 Sept 2025OA/488/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; N. Anand Venkatesh J.; O.A. No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl. No.708 of 2025; Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; pre-arbitration interim measures refused; interim injunction over partnership firm bank account (Axis Bank, Kolappakkam branch); Section 21 trigger notice not yet issued; Clause 24 partnership deed arbitration; counter affidavit - respondent lacks cheque-signing authority without co-applicant's signature; no immediate threat found; applications disposed with liberty to initiate arbitration; family/partnership dispute after parents' demise.

What did the court decide?

No interim protection granted; liberty left open to the applicant to issue notice and initiate arbitration proceedings. ¶44

Tittu Kumar Velu Vs Shankar Kumar Velu — Arbitration | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interim protection granted; liberty left open to the applicant to issue notice and initiate arbitration proceedings.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be granted restraining the respondent from operating the partnership firm's bank account(s) pending arbitration proceedings to be initiated by the applicant.

¶24

Court's answer

Taking into account the respondent's stand in his counter affidavit that he lacks authority to issue cheques on behalf of the firm without the applicant's signature after his mother's demise, the Court found there is no immediate threat of the respondent issuing cheques and taking away the entire amount in the firm's bank account.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The Court found no ground to grant the interim protection sought by the applicant under Section 9 of the Act.

¶42

Key takeaways

It was left open to the applicant to issue notice and initiate arbitration proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Anand Venkatesh, J.), common order dated 04.09.2025 disposing of Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No.708 of 2025 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Following the death of the parties' father in 2021, the applicant, his mother and the respondent executed a partnership deed dated 16.06.2021 (Clause 24: disputes to arbitration); the respondent, the elder son, managed the firm, and the applicant alleged misappropriation. The mother, a partner, died on 12.03.2025. Before issuing the Section 21 trigger notice, the applicant sought interim injunction restraining the respondent from operating the firm's Axis Bank, Kolappakkam branch account (A/c No.92102003365974) pending arbitration. In his counter affidavit the respondent stated he had no authority to sign cheques without the applicant's signature after the mother's demise. Holding that no immediate threat of cheque issuance/account depletion existed, the Court declined interim protection and disposed of both applications, leaving the applicant free to issue notice and initiate arbitration.

¶1

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶7

Tittu Kumar Velu, S/o.Late. P.Velu .... Applicant in both applications

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Shankar Kumar Velu, S/o.Late P.Velu .... Respondent in both applications

¶10

PRAYER

¶11

O.A.No. 488 of 2025

¶12

To grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, his/their men, agents' servants, auditors, audit firms or anybody claiming under or through him in any manner operating the bank account of the partnership firm viz., Axis Bank, Kolappakkam branch, Account No.92102003365974.

¶13

Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶14

To direct the respondent not to operate any bank account related to the partnership firm, during the pendeny of the arbitration proceedings or pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings.

¶15

For Applicant : Mr.K.P.Sathish Kumar [in both applns.] For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravindran

¶16

1/4

¶17

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

¶18

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

[in both applns.]

*****

COMMON ORDER

These applications have been filed under Section 9 of the

¶23

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity, hereinafter referred to

¶24

as 'the Act'] for interim injunction restraining the respondent, his men, agents, servants etc., from in any manner operating the bank account of the partnership firm pending arbitration proceedings to be initiated by the applicant and to direct the respondent not to operate any bank account related to the partnership firm.

¶25

Heard Mr.K.P.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.Ravindran, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶26

The case of the applicant is that after the demise of his father

¶27

in the year 2021, the applicant, his mother and the respondent decided to start a partnership firm. They also entered into a partnership agreement on 16.06.2021. The respondent being the elder son was appointed to manage the aforesaid firm. According to the applicant, the respondent had misappropriated the amounts and one of the partner i.e., mother of the

¶28

2/4

¶29

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

¶30

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶31

applicant died on 12.03.2025.

¶32

Clause 24 of the partnership deed provided for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. Before initiating the said proceedings, the applicant has knocked the doors of this Court seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner operating the bank account of the partnership firm.

¶33

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

¶34

applicant is yet to issue the trigger notice under Section 21 of the Act.

¶35

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the respondent has taken a stand that the respondent does not have the authority to issue cheques on behalf of the partnership firm without obtaining the signature of the applicant after the demise of his mother.

¶36

In the light of the above stand taken by the respondent, there is no immediate threat that the respondent will issue cheques and take away the entire amount lying in the bank account of the partnership firm.

¶37

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶38

¶39

3/4

¶40

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

¶41

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶42

In view of the same, this Court does not find any ground to

¶43

grant any interim protection as sought for by the applicant. It is left open to the applicant to issue notice and proceed further to initiate arbitration proceedings against the respondent in accordance with law.

¶44

These applications are disposed of in the above terms.

¶45

04.09.2025

¶46

Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order

¶47

¶48

Original Application No.488 of 2025 and Arb.Appl.No. 708 of 2025

¶49

4/4

¶50