Madras High Court
M/S. Karnik Chemist & Others vs Shriram Finance Ltd. & Another on 25 January, 2021
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023
Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
1. M/s. Karnik Chemist & others ... Petitioners vs.
1. Shriram Finance Ltd. & another ... Respondents
------
This petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for termination of the Mandate of the Arbitrator.
2. The petitioners have availed a loan from the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, the petitioners have committed default in the repayment of loan under the loan agreement. Based on the arbitration clause contained in the loan agreement, arbitration was initiated by appointing the 2nd respondent as the sole Arbitrator. The arbitration is in progress. The petitioners seek for termination of the arbitration on account of the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the 1st respondent.
3. It is now settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023 Limited reported in 2020 20 SCC 760 that an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party to the dispute is not legally permissible.
4. In view of the settled law, necessarily the Mandate of the sole Arbitrator viz., the 2nd respondent has to be terminated. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent on instructions would also submit that this petition can be allowed as prayed for and that the 1st respondent is ready and willing for fresh arbitration through an Arbitrator appointed by this Court. Accordingly, this application is allowed as prayed for by terminating the Mandate of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the first respondent. Both the learned counsels have also made an endorsement in the Court bundle stating that they are agreeable for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the Loan Agreement, dated 25.01.2021.
5. In terms of the endorsement made by both the counsels and in view of the consent given by them on instructions, this Court appoints Mrs.Gladys Rosette C. Daniel, Advocate as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of a loan agreement, dated 25.01.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023
(a) This Court appoints Mrs.Gladys Rosette C. Daniel, Advocate, who is having office at III Floor, YMCA Building, No.223, NSC Bose Road, Chennai - 600 001(Mobile No.9789980909) as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the loan agreement, dated 25.01.2021.
(b) The Arbitrator shall be paid her remuneration / fees in accordance with the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(c) Both the parties shall equally share the arbitrator's fees.
(d) The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall complete the arbitration within the specified time as prescribed under the said Act.
11.08.2023 vsi2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2 Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.281 of 2023 11.08.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4