Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Madras High Court

Vishal Krishna vs M/S.Trident Arts on 4 February, 2021

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                          O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020



                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 04.02.2021

                                                         CORAM :

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                              AND
                               THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
                                               O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020


                     Vishal Krishna                                 ...      Appellant

                                                        Vs.

                     M/s.Trident Arts,
                     rep. by its Sole Proprietor
                     Mr.R.Ravichandran,
                     having office at No.1C and 1D,
                     Hari Mansion, J.P.Avenue
                     Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
                     Mylapore, Chennai 4.                           ...      Respondent

                     Prayer: Appeals filed against the Fair and Decretal order passed in

                     A.No.2110 of 2012 and O.A.No.434 of 2020 dated 15.10.2020.



                               For Appellant            ::     Mr.A.Chidambaram
                               For respondents          ::     Mr.Sathish Parasaran,
                                                               Senior Counsel,
                                                               for Mr.Vijayan Subramanian




                     __________
                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                     O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020




                                                      JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) These appeals arise out of an order by which security has been required to be furnished in respect of a claim proposed to be carried to an arbitral reference by the respondent herein. The appellant says that no grounds were made out for directing any security to be furnished.

2. Since the parties, at the request of the Court, have agreed to the form of the order as suggested by the Court, it is not necessary to dilate much into the issues or to confuse the matter even further. It may only be recorded that the parties have agreed to Mr.Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu (Retired) to take up the reference in terms of the arbitration agreement contained in the contract dated June 7, 2019.

3. It is also recorded that at the suggestion of the court, the parties have agreed to accept that the appellant herein will invest a __________ Page 2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020 sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) by way of a fixed deposit with any nationalized bank and make over the fixed deposit receipt therefor to the Registrar-General of this court within a fortnight from date. The Registrar-General will hold the fixed deposit receipt and, in effect, the fixed deposit together with interest accrued thereon, which will abide by the result of the arbitral proceedings.

4. There is one word that needs to be said in the context. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does provide for an order of security to be made by way of an interim measure. Though the Act of 1996 is a Code by itself since it is an amending and consolidating Act, the effective words used in the provision is “securing the amount in dispute in the arbitration”. An amount may come to be disputed upon a demand being made and it not being met; or upon a demand being made and it being denied or in any like manner. The provision does not give unbridled authority to a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Act to willy-nilly order security to be furnished merely because an amount has been __________ Page 3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020 claimed and the claimant proposes to carry the claim to arbitration.

5. Two aspects have always to be kept in mind before any order for furnishing security can be made: the unimpeachable character of the claim; and, the genuine apprehension, and resultant finding, that the defendant or respondent may not be in a position to pay the amount by the time the likely award ripens for implementation. Indeed, an order without taking into consideration both aspects of the matter and expressing an opinion thereon may not pass muster in law as one made under Section 9(1)(ii)(b) of the said Act.

6. Even though, strictly speaking, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not govern every aspect of arbitration, but such code is the general law pertaining to all matters civil and the underlying principles recognized therein continue to remain as guiding factors. Though provisions in the Arbitration Act indicate that the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act, 1872 would not be binding, but such provisions do not indicate that such principal statutes __________ Page 4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020 should be disregarded altogether.

7. Since, in fine, the resolution at this stage has been arrived at by consensus, nothing further need be said. It is only put on record that an order in the nature of attachment before judgment, which a direction for furnishing security amounts to, must meet very exacting tests and such a high order has to be regarded as an exception rather than the rule.

O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020 are disposed of by recording the consensus between the parties as above. This limited agreement for the purpose of the present appeals will be completely without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in course of the arbitral reference. As a consequence, the judgment and order impugned are set aside. C.M.P.No.14577 of 2020 is also closed. There will be no order as to costs.

                                                                  (S.B., CJ.)      (S.K.R., J.)
                                                                            04.02.2021
                     Index : Yes/No
                     tar


                     __________
                     Page 5 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                          O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020




                                        THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                     AND
                                   SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

                                                                  (tar)




                                      O.S.A.Nos.304 and 305 of 2020




                                                          04.02.2021



                     __________
                     Page 6 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/