Madras High Court
Austin Distributors Private Limited vs Hyundai Motor India Limited on 12 February, 2021
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
O.S.A.Nos. 8 and 9 of 2021
Austin Distributors Private Limited
rep. by its Authorised Signatory & General Manager
Biju Ponnan
No.19, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road
Kolkata 700 087 Appellant in
West Bengal 700 087. ... both OSAs
Vs.
Hyundai Motor India Limited
rep. by its Managing Director
Plot No.H-1, Sipcot Industrial Park
Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk
Kancheepuram District Respondent in
Tamil Nadu 602 117. ... both OSAs
Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI, Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act & Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, against the common order and decree dated
23.12.2020 made in A.Nos.1901 and 1902 of 2020.
For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, S.C.
For Mr.J.Ravikumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, S.C.
For M/s. Surana and Surana
__________
Page 1 of 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) The appeals arise out of a final order passed on petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An agency agreement, in course of which the business may have been conducted on principal to principal basis, appears to have been terminated. An initial order was obtained in the Section 9 proceedings for status quo to be maintained. Such order in the nature of status quo has been vacated by the common judgment and order impugned herein.
2. When the appeals were moved on the previous occasion, it was noticed that the arbitral reference had not commenced. A lot is at stake in the matter and, according to the appellant, more than 100 workers and huge areas of operation specially created for the business between the parties herein may have to be abandoned. The parties have now agreed to go to arbitration with Justice K.Kannan (Retired) as the Arbitrator.
3. In the light of amended Section 9 of the Act, the parties are permitted to carry their prayer for interim measures before the __________ Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2021 Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act of 1996. It is made clear that if any application in such regard is pursued, it will be open to the Arbitrator to decide the same without being unduly influenced by the observations in the order impugned herein.
4. It is hoped that the reference is taken up by the Arbitrator agreed to between the parties as expeditiously as may be convenient to the Retired Judge. It is also hoped that any request for interim measures receives the immediate attention of the Arbitrator.
O.S.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2021, along with CMP Nos.138 and 141 of 2021 are disposed of. The observations herein are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. There will be no order as to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
12.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl
Office to Note:
A copy of this order be marked to
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Kannan (Retd.) __________ Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2021 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
kpl O.S.A.Nos.8 & 9 of 2021 12.02.2021 __________ Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/