M/S.Daimler Financial Services India Pvt.Ltd., v. Mr.J.Kalisetti Venkateswarlu,
Appln.No.3899 of 2021 in O.P.No.591 of 2020 M.SUNDAR, J., Captioned application has been presented in this Court under Section 15(2) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].
2. Earlier proceedings made in the previous listings bring to light that the parties on either side submitted that they would explore the possibility of settlement. This is the reason why there were multiple listings of captioned Arb.O.P. under cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT'. To be noted, it is listed under the same cause list caption today also.
3. Be that as it may, today Ms.V.Pavithra of M/s.Pass Associates (Law Firm) for applicant and Ms.V.Abinayasri, learned counsel representing Mr.V.Anil Kumar, counsel on record for all the three respondents are before this Court.
1/7
4. Both learned counsel submit that there was some progress in settlement but it could not be concluded.
5. To be noted, Hon'ble predecessor Judge in and by an order dated 18.01.2021 made in O.P.No.591 of 2020 had appointed a learned Member of the Bar of this Court as sole Arbitrator and the said learned Member had withdrawn himself qua the mandate in and by proceedings dated 30.06.2021 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 2/7
3/7
6. Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan, learned Member of the Bar who was appointed as sole Arbitrator, was sent for by this Court and he is present in Court. To be noted, learned counsel was present in this Court in the forenoon session for some other matter. This Court requested Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan, learned counsel to express his willingness to continue as an Arbitrator if the mandate is resuscitated by this Court in 4/7
the captioned application. Learned counsel submitted that the only reason which impelled him to make aforementioned proceedings dated 30.06.2021 was that he did not hear from learned counsel on both sides. This is not a case of de jure or de facto incapacity to act as Arbitrator. Therefore, there is no impediment in resuscitating the mandate of sole Arbitrator.
7. To this, aforementioned learned counsel on both sides submit that they would go before learned Arbitrator and conclude the proceedings one way or the other. In saying 'one way or the other', it is meant that it is either by embarking upon the usual procedure of adjudication / by adopting normal arbitral procedure or fast tracking under Section 29B of A and C Act or by settling the matter by resorting to Section 30 of A and C Act.
8. The above draws the curtains on the captioned matter. This Court places on record its appreciation to Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan, Advocate, for having agreed to continue the arbitral proceedings and conclude the same. Both aforementioned learned counsel also submit that they will extend all co-operation to learned Arbitrator for concluding 5/7
the proceedings one way or the other by resorting to one of the aforementioned procedures.
9. Though obvious it is made clear that the learned Arbitrator shall hold sittings at 'Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court' ['MHCAC'], in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017 and learned Arbitrator's fee shall be as per Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees), Rules 2017.
10. Captioned application disposed of in aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
13.07.2022 Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to:
1.Mr.Thriyambak J.Kannan, Advocate First Floor, 119, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
2. The Director, Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre -cum- Ex-Officio Member, Madras High Court Arbitration Centre, Madras High Court, Chennai 600 104.
6/7
M.SUNDAR.J., ds Appln.No.3899 of 2021 in O.P.No.591 of 2020 13.07.2022 7/7