Madras High Court
M/S.M.M.Bilal Hussain & Co vs Mr.Panner Selvam. R on 29 June, 2017
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
O.P.No.457 of 2020
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date 17.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
O.P.No.457 of 2020
M/s.M.M.Bilal Hussain & Co.,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
Mr.Imran Hussain,
No.63, Perambur High Road,
Chennai – 600 012 . . . Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr.Panner Selvam. R
Proprietor,
Ever Stone Minerals,
No.83, Burma Nagar, 19th Street,
Sadayankuppam Village, Manali,
Chennai – 600 103.
2. Mr.Mohamed Farhan,
Authorized Representative of
M/s. Ever Stone Minerals,
No.63, D.M.Street, Chennai – 600 003. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising out of the Memorandum
of Understanding dated 29.06.2017 entered between the petitioner and the
respondents.
Page 1 / 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.P.No.457 of 2020
For petitioner : Mr.S.Hussain Afroze
For respondents : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
for K.Elangovan – R1
No appearance – R2
ORDER
This Original Petition has been filed to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes arising out of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.06.2017 between the petitioner and the respondents.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that the first respondent represented that he is the proprietor of M/s.Ever Stone Minerals and the second respondent is the partner and associate of the first respondent. The respondents approached petitioner for availing loan and they availed a sum of Rs.2 crores from the petitioner for their business purpose. It is his further contention that a Memorandum of Understanding had been entered between the parties and consequently a request was also made and a cheque has also been issued in favour of the petitioner and two promissory notes were also executed. Thereafter, there was a default and legal notice has been issued to the respondents. Despite invoking arbitration, the respondents have not agreed for arbitration as per the Memorandum of Understanding. Page 2 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.457 of 2020
3. It is contention of the first respondent that he is never a party to the Memorandum of Understanding entered between the parties on 29.06.2017. The respondent is also never a party to the documents relied upon by the petitioner. There were proceedings under the Customs Act by the Revenue Intelligence [Chennai Zonal Unit] for violation of various illegalities in exporting red sanders. It is his contention that there is no contract entered between the first respondent and the second respondent and his signature found in one of the letter is also forged and in respect of which a criminal complaint has also been lodged.
4. There is no representation for the second respondent.
5. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.06.2017 has been signed by the petitioner and the second respondent alone. Though the first respondent was represented by the second respondent, there is no whisper whatsoever made in the entire Memorandum of Understanding as to the rights of the first respondent. The petitioner has also issued legal notice dated 25.07.2019 to the respondents. Reply notice is also said to have been issued by the first respondent on behalf of second respondent. Very letter has been disputed as forged by the first respondent. The so Page 3 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.457 of 2020 called cheque issued for Rs.2 crores also received by the second respondent as can be seen from the typed set page No.8 and the promissory notes contained in the typed set page Nos.9 and 10 are also signed by the second respondent. The first respondent is not a party to the contract and serious allegations of forgery and fraud has been raised with regard to the signature in the so called letter of demand and other documents do show involvement of the first respondent and there is also a criminal case pending in this regard for violation of Customs Act alleging exporting of red sanders.
6. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the dispute is not arbitrable. It is for the applicant to go before the Civil Court to establish his rights.
7. Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed.
17.04.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet: Yes Speaking/non speaking order vrc Page 4 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.P.No.457 of 2020 N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc order in:
O.P.No.457 of 2020
17.04.2021 Page 5 / 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/