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 2, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Mr.A.Kumar vs M/S.Precision Engineering on 26 October, 2022

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                       Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 26.10.2022

                                                       CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                        Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022


                     Mr.A.Kumar, S/o.Mr.P.Arumugam,
                     Partner - M/s.Precision Engineering,
                     Residing at No.16 - A, Ram Bharathi Street,
                     Krishnapuram, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.                             ... Petitioner


                                                          vs.

                     1.M/s.Precision Engineering,
                       Rep. by its Managing Partner Mr.P.Arumugam,
                       No.11, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
                       Ambattur, Chennai - 600 098.

                     2.Mr.P.Arumugam,
                       Managing Partner - M/s.Precision Engineering,
                       No.11, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
                       Ambattur, Chennai - 600 098.

                     3.Mr.A.Murugan, S/o.P.Arumugam,
                       Partner - M/s.Precision Engineering,
                       No.11, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
                       Ambattur, Chennai - 600 098.                                   ...
                     Respondents

                     (The fourth and fifth respondents were deleted from the array of parties by a

                     1/5


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                         Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022

                     separate order dated 26.10.2022)

                     PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the

                     Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, pleased to appoint an Independent

                     Qualified Sole Arbitrator, to hear and decide the claims of the Petitioner,

                     arising out of the Partnership Agreement dated 19.03.1998.



                                       For Petitioner    : Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam

                                       For Respondents : Mr.T.Mohan
                                             1 to 3      for M/s.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan

                                       For Respondent 2 : Mr.J.Vasu

                                       For Respondent 3 : Mr.S.Prabhakaran
                                                          for M/s.Udayveer Singh


                                                         **********

                                                          ORDER

The dispute arises between the partners of the partnership firm, M/s.Precision Engineering. The petitioner relies upon clause 17 of the partnership deed, which provides for dispute resolution through arbitration. The present petition is filed after issuing a Section 21 notice dated 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022 28.03.2022.

2. Upon receipt of notice, respondents 1 to 3 are represented by counsel. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 points out that the partnership constituted on 19.03.1998 was re-constituted under partnership deed dated 01.04.2008, which does not contain an arbitration clause. Nevertheless, in view of the order dated 02.09.2022 in C.R.P.No.2315 of 2022, respondents 1 to 3 are agreeable for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.

3. Since parties agree to abide by the arbitration clause in the partnership deed dated 19.03.1998 and this petition was admittedly preceded by a Section 21 notice, which was not responded to by the respondents herein, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

4. Both parties submit that they are agreeable to the appointment of Mr.Justice K.Kannan, retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as the sole arbitrator.

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022

5. Accordingly, Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022 is allowed by appointing Mr.Justice K.Kannan, retired Judge, as the sole arbitrator. The sole arbitrator is called upon to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute. The fees and expenses in relation to the arbitral proceedings may be decided in consultation with the parties.

26.10.2022 rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Note: Issue Order copy on 28.10.2022.

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J rna Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.567 of 2022 26.10.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis