Mr.A.Anandhan, S/O. Mr.Arumugam, Proprietor M/S. Sri Ranga Real Estate v. Mr.A.Govindasamy,S/O.Late Ayyasamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 01.03.2022 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR A.Anandhan, Proprietor, M/s.Sri Ranga Real Estate 37/7, 2nd Floor G Towers, Near Collector Office, Lotus Shopping Centre Backside, Perundurai Road, Erode 638 001.
... Petitioner vs.
A.Govidasamy, S/o.(Late) Ayyasamy.
... Respondent Prayer:
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to a) Appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of the arbitration agreement in respect of the Letter of Consent dated 08.10.2021 which is a part and parcel of the Agreement for purchase of site 07.10.2015.
b) Direct the respondent to pay costs.
1/9
For petitioner :
Ms.S.Tamil Selvi.
For respondent :
Mr.V.Achuthanandan
O R D E R
Captioned Arb.OP has been presented in this Court on 28.10.2021 under Section 11(6) of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)', which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity with a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the arbitral disputes that have erupted between the petitioner and respondent qua an agreement for sale (sale of a site) dated 07.10.2015.
2. It will suffice to say that the petitioner is the proposed vendor and respondent is the agreement holder qua 07.10.2015 agreement for sale of a site. It may not be necessary to dilate more on facts owing to the limited scope of captioned Arb.OP. Suffice to say that disputes center around sale transaction not being completed by paying the balance. The petitioner caused a legal notice dated 04.06.2021 to be issued to the respondent together with a Form like consent letter calling upon the noticee / respondent to consent for resolving the disputes by arbitration. The respondent has 2/9
signed the letter of consent. The 04.06.2021 legal notice and 08.10.2021 letter of consent are as follows:
3/9
4/9
3. Prior to presentation of captioned Arb.OP in this Court on 28.10.2021, petitioner presented anther OP vide O.P (SR)44884 of 2021 with 5/9
a prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator. This Court is informed that this OP was returned for objections on 14.06.2021. Petitioner has taken back the case papers but has not chosen to re-present the same until today.
4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for petitioner Ms.S.Tamil Selvi, who is before this Court, who is also the counsel on record in O.P (SR)44884 of 2021 has today made an endorsement in this case file which reads as follows:
'Diary No. OP/44884/2021 will not be pressed'
5. That draws the curtains on O.P (SR) 44884 of 2021. In the captioned Arb.OP there is no disputation or disagreement about the aforementioned legal notice dated 04.06.2021 being caused to be issued by the petitioner and the letter of consent dated 08.10.2021 signed by the respondent (to be noted, both have been scanned and reproduced elsewhere supra in this order). This means that there is no disputation or disagreement about the existence of an arbitration agreement. This Court reminds itself that captioned Arb.OP is one under Section 11 of A and C Act and therefore, legal perimeter is drawn and defined by sub-section (6A) of Section 11. This legal perimeter talks about this Court being satisfied about the existence of an arbitration agreement. This has now come to stay in litigation parlance as 6/9
Mayavati Tranding principle being ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mayavati Trading Private Limited Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman reported in (2019) 8 SCC 714. Relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows:
'10. This being the position, it is clear that the law prior to the 2015 Amendment that has been laid down by this Court, which would have included going into whether accord and satisfaction has taken place, has now been legislatively overruled. This being the position, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgments, as Section 11(6-A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment in Duro Felguera SA.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight)
6. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Advocate, residing at No.17, GA, Landmark Building, Sait Colony 1st Street, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 [Mob: 98410 91222, Ph: 044-2819 1222, E-mail: adv.fayaz@ymail.com]. Learned Arbitrator is requested to adjudicate upon the arbitrable disputes that have erupted between the petitioner and respondent qua aforementioned agreement for sale dated 07.10.2015 in the 'Arbitration and Conciliation 7/9
Centre under the aegis of this Court' (MHCAC) in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules, 2017 and Hon'ble Arbitrator's fee shall be as per Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees), Rules 2017. Captioned Arb.OP is disposed of in the aforesaid manner. There shall be no order as to costs.
01.03.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No gpa Note: Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to
1. Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Advocate, No.17, GA, Landmark Building, Sait Colony 1st Street, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 [Mob: 9841091222, Ph: 044-28191222], E-mail: adv.fayaz@ymail.com.
2. The Director Tamil Nadu Mediation Council Centre -cum- Ex-Officio Member Madras High Court, Arbitration Centre Chennai - 104 8/9
M.SUNDAR. J gpa 01.03.2022 9/9