G.G.Hospitals v. M/S.Ascent Engineers And Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI O.S.A.No. 35 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.2769 of 2022 in O.S.A.No.35 of 2022 M/s.G.G. Hospitals rep. By its Sole Proprietor Kamala Selvaraj, 6E, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
.. Appellant Vs 1.M/s.Ascent Engineers & Infrastructures India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly M/s.Ascent Engineers, a Partnership Firm) rep. By its Managing Director Srinivasan S.Iyer, No.12, 46th Street, 9th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 089.
2.M/s.Larsen & Toubro Limited, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai - 600 089.
.. Respondents Original Side Appeal filed under Section 37(1)(C) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 r/w Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules against the order dated 07.10.2021 made in O.P.No.460 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Santhanaraman and Ms.Tamilselvi Santhanaraman For Respondent :Mr.V.Kuberan for M/s.Rank Associates for R1 Ms.Preethi Mohan for R2 1/10
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Sundar, J.) This common order will now dispose of captioned 'Original Side Appeal' (hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity) and captioned 'Civil Miscellaneous Petition' (hereinafter 'CMP' for the sake of brevity) thereat.
2. Captioned OSA is an intra-court appeal and it is a statutory appeal inter-alia under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act 26 of 1996)' (hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity) assailing an order dated 07.10.2021 made in O.P. No.461 of 2017 by a Section 34 Court dismissing a Section 34 OP and confirming an 'arbitral award dated 14.04.2017 (corrected on 20.04.2017)' (hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity). The order of Section 34 Court is dated 07.10.2021 and the same shall be referred to as 'impugned order'.
3. Pending captioned OSA, Hon'ble Predecessor Benches have made more than one order qua stay of impugned award.
4. Captioned matter is listed under the cause list caption 'FOR RECORDING COMPROMISE' today. Mr.M.Santhanaraman along 2/10
with Ms.Tamil Selvi Santhanaraman, counsel for appellant, Mr.V.Kuberan of M/s.Rank Associates for first respondent and Ms.Preethi Mohan for second respondent are before us.
5. As regards the appellant, learned counsel has filed a memo dated 11.06.2024 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
3/10
4/10
6. Learned counsel has also made endorsements in the case file and the same are as follows:
The above gives quietus to the captioned matter. 5/10
7. Be that as it may, adverting to the aforementioned orders made by Hon'ble Predecessor Benches regarding interim stay of impugned award, Mr.V.Kuberan drew our attention to proceedings/orders dated 10.03.2022, 23.06.2022 and 08.07.2022 made in CMPs in captioned OSA. It may not be necessary to advert to the orders in detail as there is absolute consensus as between learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for first respondent that of the monies deposited by the appellant as condition for stay of impugned award, Rs.50 lakhs has already been withdrawn by first respondent without security, that the remaining has been withdrawn by furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee and the letter of the issuing bank under cover of which the bank guarantee was issued (letter dated 11.08.2023) is as follows:
6/10
8. There is no disputation or contestation that a sum of Rs.6.70 crores paid now by the appellant is balance after giving credit to Rs.50 lakhs and the money withdrawn by first respondent by furnishing bank guarantee.
7/10
9. In the aforesaid scenario, Mr.V.Kuberan made a request to make a directive to the Registry qua discharge of the aforementioned bank guarantee so that, it will save the tedious task of taking out one more CMP where there will be no contest. To be noted, as regards the facts recorded thus far, there is no disputation or contestation as between the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for first respondent. Learned counsel for second respondent submits that second respondent is only a Consultant qua contract and threfore only a formal party to the entire proceedings owing to which, the second respondent has nothing to say.
10. In the light of the narrative thus far, we deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to discharge the aforementioned bank guarantee so that security is returned to the counsel on record for first respondent under due acknowledgment as expeditiously as the business of the Registry would permit but in any event within four weeks from today i.e., by 10.07.2024 subject only to learned counsel on record for first respondent following the prescribed procedure and complying with all requirements under the prescribed procedure.
8/10
11. Captioned OSA and captioned CMP thereat are disposed of as closed/withdrawn albeit with the aforementioned directive regarding return of security to first respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.J.) (K.G.T.J.) 12.06.2024 Index:Yes/No mmi To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.
9/10
M.SUNDAR.J., and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J., mmi O.S.A No.35 of 2022 12.06.2024 10/10