← Library
Madras High CourtOP/901/2016disposed of

R.Srinivasan v. Mr.R.Lenin

2016-12-09Honourable The Chief Justice5 pages

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 09.12.2016 Coram :

The Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice O.P.Nos.901 to 905 of 2016 and A.Nos.6475 to 6479 of 2016 R.Srinivasan .. Petitioner in all OPs.

-vs1.M/s.Thangam Industries, Virudhunagar 626 001.

2.R.Lenin 3.L.Desigasigamani 4.R.Maheshkumar 5.R.Kanagavel 6.L.Balaji 7.L.Saravanan 8.Deivamani 9.M.Kasilatha 10.S.Annalakshmi 11.Hon'ble Justice Dr.T.N.Vallinayagam ''SITA NEL'' No.20/28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017... Respondents in OP 901/2016 1.M/s.Thangam Printers, Virudhunagar 626 001.

2.L.Desigasigamani 3.R.Maheshkumar 4.R.Kanagavel 5.L.Balaji 6.L.Saravanan 7.M.Venkatesh Kumar 8.M.Rajesh Kumar 9.S.Krishna Kumar

10. Hon'ble Justice Dr.T.N.Vallinayagam ''SITA NEL'' No.20/28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 .. Respondents in OP 902/2016 1.M/s.Thangam Plastics,

Virudhunagar 626 001.

2.L.Desigasigamani 3.R.Maheshkumar 4.R.Kanagavel 5.L.Balaji 6.Hon'ble Justice Dr.T.N.Vallinayagam ''SITA NEL'' No.20/28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 .. Respondents in OP 903/2016 1.M/s.Kanagavel Trading Company Virudhunagar 626 001.

2.R.Lenin 3.K.Deivamani 4.M.Kasilatha 5.S.Annalakshmi 6.L.Saravanan 7.Hon'ble Justice Dr.T.N.Vallinayagam ''SITA NEL'' No.20/28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 .. Respondents in OP 904/2016 1.M/s.Thangam Traders Virudhunagar 626 001.

2.R.Lenin 3.R.Kanagavel 4.L.Saravanan 5.B.Ram Kumar 6.M.Venkatesh Kumar 7.M.Rajesh Kumar 8.S.Jayashree 9.Hon'ble Justice Dr.T.N.Vallinayagam ''SITA NEL'' No.20/28, Krishna Street, T.Nagar Chennai 600 017 .. Respondents in OP 906/2016 Petitions filed under Section 14 (1) and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with clause 2 of the appointment of Arbitrator's Scheme by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court's Scheme, 1996, to direct to terminate the services of the Arbitrator and a new Arbitrator may be appointed; to conduct such arbitration proceedings at Chennai only.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan for RR 6 and 7 in OP.901/2016 * * * * *

O R D E R

It appears that there has been not much progress in the arbitration, but then the petitioner before us has not even filed the reply to the statement of claim. Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 and 7 in O.P.No.901 of 2016 states that service on various respondents before the Arbitrator have not been completed, as the parties were not found at their given address.

2.I am of the view that now that the setting up of the Madras High Court Arbitrator Centre which takes care of the initial procedural requirements wherever the role of the Arbitrator starts, let the proceedings be governed by the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre and the records be sent to the Arbitration Centre so that the Centre acts in pursuance to the rules, with the Arbitrator remaining the same.

3.Original Petitions, accordingly, stand disposed of. No costs. Consequently, A.Nos.6475 to 6479 of 2016 stand closed. (S.K.K., CJ.) 09.12.2016 sra

The Hon'ble Chief Justice (sra) O.P.Nos.901 to 905 of 2016 09.12.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in