Madras High Court
M/S.Sentinel Clothing Company vs M/S.Cargomar (Private) Ltd on 23 June, 2015
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.06.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.801 of 2014 and C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.802 of 2014 AND C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.803 of 2014 and C.R.P (PD)(MD)No.992 of 2013 and M.P(MD).Nos.1 of 2013 and 1,1 and 1 of 2014 1.M/s.Sentinel Clothing Company No.10, 2nd Street, Tirupur ? 641 604 rep. By its Partner Mr.V.S.Chandirakumar 2.V.S.Chandhirakumar 3.S.Rukmani ... Petitioners in all CRPs. Vs. M/s.Cargomar (Private) Ltd., 36/1,2nd Street, Muniaswamypuram, Kamaraj Salai, Tuticorin ? 3, rep. By Mr.N.Harikrishnan Senior Executive Accountant and Power of attorney ... Respondents in all CRPs. Prayer in C.R.P.No.801 of 2014: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23 August 2011 made in I.A.No.102 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. Prayer in C.R.P.No.802 of 2014: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18 June 2012 made in I.A.No.565 of 2011in O.S.No.155 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. Prayer in C.R.P.No.803 of 2014: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18 June 2012 made in I.A.No.567 of 2011in O.S.No.157 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. Prayer in C.R.P.No.992 of 2013: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18 June 2012 made in I.A.No.566 of 2011in O.S.No.156 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin. !For Petitioners : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan ^For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan :ORDER
The respondents filed suits in O.S.Nos.102 of 2006, 155, 157 and 156 of 2011 to pass a judgment and decree to realise the amount from the petitioners. The respondent made series of claims on the basis of bill of lading contending that the the petitioners have to pay the freight and all other related charges.
2.Before the trial Court, the petitioners have filed applications in I.A.Nos.102 of 2008, 565, 567 and 566 of 2011 to dismiss the suits on the ground of arbitration. The applications were dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is a specific clause for arbitration as per clause 25 of the standard conditions governing Multimodal Transport Documents issued in accordance with Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 and as such, the learned trial Judge was not correct in dismissing the applications.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand justified the impugned order and contended that the arbitration is only optional.
5.The respondent laid the suits in O.S.Nos.102 of 2006, 155, 157 and 156 of 2011 before the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin on the strength of bills of lading. The respondent wanted the petitioners to pay the freight charges for sending the goods from Tuticorin to United Kingdom.
6.Before the trial Court, the petitioners filed applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to refer the matters to an Arbitrator. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is a provision for Arbitration and as such, the respondent was not correct in instituting the suits before the civil Court.
7.The standard conditions governing Multimodal Transport Documents issued in accordance with Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 contain a provision for Arbitration. It reads thus:
?The contract evidence hereby or contained herein shall be governed by and construed according to Indian Laws. Any differences of opinion or dispute there under can be settled by arbitration in India or a place mutually agreed with each party appointing an arbitrator.?
8.The above referred provision gives an option to the parties to refer the matter to an arbitrator. There is no mandatory provision to refer the dispute for arbitration. It only shows that dispute could be settled by arbitration in India or a place mutually agreed, each party appointing an arbitrator. The petitioners have not appointed arbitrators so far pursuant to clause 25 of the standard conditions. There is no compulsion on the part of the respondent to refer the matter to an arbitrator in view of the language used in clause 25 of the standard conditions.
9.The Multimodal Transport Documents also contain a specific clause in 23 of the standard conditions, which provides for jurisdiction in respect of judicial proceedings. The said clause also gives an indication that suit is not barred. Such being the terms and conditions of the standard in question, it cannot be said that the respondent was not justified in filing suits before the civil Court at Tuticorin.
10.The applications submitted by the petitioners were rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge. I do not find any error or illegality in the said orders warranting interference by this Court.
11.In the upshot, I dismiss the civil revision petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2013 and 1,1 and 1 of 2014 are also dismissed.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.