Madras High Court
Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd on 15 July, 2020
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
OP No.235 of 2020
O.P.235 of 2020 and
A.No.1004 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This matter is listed today under the caption for 'being mentioned' at
the instance of the learned counsel for the applicant.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that
in this matter award has not been passed and only an interim Order has been
passed. Whereas, the Order indicate as if the award has been passed.
Therefore, the same has to be clarified.
3. It is to be noted that on the same day when this matter has been
listed on 15.07.2020, this Court taking note of the fact that there are
infirmities in the proceedings and after verifying has passed one Order in
Item Nos. 69 and 80 to 95 another Order in item nos.70 to 79. While
drafting, it appears that the Order passed in item Nos.70 to 79 has been typed
in item Nos.69 and 80 to 95 and the Order passed in item Nos.69 and 80 to
95 has been typed in item Nos.70 to 79.
1 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
3. In view the same the Order of this Court in O.P.No.235 of 2020 and
A.No.1004 of 2020, dated 15.07.2020 shall be read as follows :
“When the matter is taken up today, the learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent company has
fairly submitted that as the Court had pointed out various
infirmities in the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator in
other matters and as the very same arbitrator had dealt many
number of cases of the first respondent company, they have
no objection for appointing fresh arbitrator in these matters
Mr.M.S.Sampath, has been suggested to enter upon the
reference in this matter.
2. The learned counsel appearing for both sides have
no objection for going for appointment of a fresh arbitrator,
viz., Mr.M.S.Sampath.
3. In view of the fact that as the arbitrator had dealt
with many number of cases of the first respondent, as agreed
by both sides, Mr.M.S.Sampath, Advocate, residing at
No.33, Baskaran Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024,
2 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
Mobile No.9841159996, is appointed as an arbitrator to
enter upon the reference. The learned arbitrator shall
disclose disclosure statement as mandated under law and
conduct the proceedings after giving opportunity to both
sides and complete the proceedings, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix the remuneration and
the same shall be borne by the respondent and other
incidental expenses, shall be borne by the parties equally.
Same shall be included in the costs.
4. In the Original Petition, this Court directed that the
cost to be borne only by the respondent.
5. It is the contention of the respondent that the cost
to be borne by both the parties. Be that as it may.
6. This Court after considering various infirmities and
manipulation of records on the part of the respondent, such
Order came to be passed. Therefore, the order as to cost
need not be recalled. At any event, if the applicant succeeds
3 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
in the arbitration, the cost borne by them shall be included.
7. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of
and the connected application is closed.”
4. The registry is directed to incorporate the above Order in
O.P.No.235 of 2020 and A.No.1004 of 2020, dated 15.07.2020 and issue
fresh order copy to the parties.
09.09.2020
vrc
4 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
O.P.235 of 2020 and
A.No.1004 of 2020
09.09.2020
5 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
O.P.235 of 2020 and
A.No.1004 of 2020
Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt Ltd.
Rep. by its Authorized representative
F-213/E-1, Old M.B.Road,
Lado Sarai, New Delhi - 110030 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Representative,
having its registered office at
No.1, Sardar patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2. Mr.S.Samuel (Sole Arbitrator),
Office at No.7/2, Kondichetty Street,
1st Floor, Room No.116, Parrys,
Chennai 600 001.
3. Meenakshi Syal,
d/o Shri Amar Singh,
No.117, First Floor, Uday Park,
New Delhi 110049 ... Respondents
6 of 4
http://www.judis.nic.in
OP No.235 of 2020
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to terminate the mandate of the arbitrator assumed
under notice of reference dated 14.11.2019 and substitute an independent
arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the
respondent arising out of the Arbitration Agreement bearing
No.DHDLSG00527 dated 30.09.2017.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthik Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.V.Balasubramani
ORDER
When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent company has fairly submitted that as the Court had pointed out various infirmities in the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator, they have no objection for appointing fresh arbitrator in this matter and has suggested a practising advocate Mr.Sampath to enter upon the reference.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for going for fresh arbitrator, viz., Mr.M.S.Sampath.
3. In view of the fact that despite the interim Order passed by this Court, award has been hurriedly passed, without any appropriate 7 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in OP No.235 of 2020 proceedings and that itself clearly indicate that the award is a result of bias. In such view of the matter as the award has been passed during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the proceedings itself, the award is set aside. As agreed by both sides, Mr.M.S.Sampath, Advocate, residing at No.33, Baskaran Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024, Mobile No.9841159996, is appointed as an arbitrator to enter upon the reference. The learned arbitrator shall disclose disclosure statement as mandated under law and conduct the proceedings after giving opportunity to both sides and complete the proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix the remuneration and other incidental expenses, which shall be borne by the respondent.
4. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of and the connected application is closed.
15.07.2020 mst Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
8 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in OP No.235 of 2020 N. SATHISH KUMAR,J mst O.P.No.235 of 2020 and A.No.1004 of 2020 9 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in OP No.235 of 2020 15.07.2020 10 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in