W VGV Vijay Garden, 10th Street Rajakiyapalayam Pirivu, Kangayam Road,Tirupur v. M/s.Cheran Properties Limited
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This application is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 11, 21
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Post the matter on 07.08.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 20252.Heard Mr.Akbar Badusha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. 3. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the valid agreement between…
Judgment
Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03-09-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESHArb O.P No. 34 of 20251. Ms.Leela.R,W/o.Rajkumar Residing at 64W VGV Vijay Garden, 10th Street Rajakiyapalayam Pirivu, Kangayam Road, Tirupur. Petitioner(s)Vs1. M/s.Cheran Properties Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Karthick Palanisamy, Office at. No.78,Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore-641 018. Respondent(s)PRAYERTo appoint an Arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the Petitioner and Respondent in respect of Appointment Letter dated 09.08.2024.For Petitioner(s):M/s.Akbar BadushaFor Respondent(s):M/s. Waraon And Sai Ram,T.Thiageswaran-ms/136/1988P.Neethi Kumar, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025R.M.Srinivas-ms/1138/2019J.M.Akhinbose,M.Babija, For Respondent Vakalat D.No.31136/25, Returned 07.08.20258144688561 ORDERWhen this application came up for hearing on 14.07.2025, this Court passed the following order:- This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an arbitrator.
There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of the Appointment Letter, dated 09.08.2024 issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent. According to the petitioner, the respondent has committed breach of Appointment Letter, dated 09.08.2024. There exists an arbitration clause in the Appointment Order dated 09.08.2024 and the same is extracted hereunder :-
23. Dispute Resolution The parties agree that any claim, dispute or difference relating to or arising out of this letter will be referred to the arbitration of the Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre currently functioning at New No.22, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai – 600004, which will appoint the sole arbitrator and conduct the arbitration in accordance with its rules for conduct of arbitration proceedings then in force and applicable to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025the proceedings. The parties agree that such arbitration will be the sole and exclusive remedy between the parties with respect to all such disputes. The seat and venue of arbitration will be Chennai, Tamil Nadu and the proceedings will be conducted in English. The arbitration award will be final and binding on the parties.
The petitioner has invoked arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause by issuing notice to the respondent on 19.02.2025 to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No reply has been received by the petitioner for the same. Since there is no consensus between the parties with regard to the name of the Arbitrator, this petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator.
Since there exists an arbitration clause in the Appointment Letter, which is the subject matter of the contract between the parties and since there is no consensus between the parties with regard to the name of the Arbitrator, this Court is issuing notice to the respondent, through Court as well as privately returnable by 07.08.2025.
Operative part
Post the matter on 07.08.2025. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 20252.Heard Mr.Akbar Badusha, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent. 3. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the valid agreement between the parties and there is also a specific clause (clause 23) for referring the dispute to the Arbitrator. 4. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to appoint Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, Advocate, Madras High Court, residing at No.17, GA “Landmark” Sait Colony, 1st street, Egmore, Chennai 600 008, M No.9003237483, email id: [REDACTED] as the sole Arbitrator and the sole Arbitrator is requested to enter upon reference qua MGTA dated 05.09.2022, MRA dated 12.09.2023 and MLA dated 11.06.2024, adjudicate the arbitral disputes that had arisen between the parties and render arbitral award by holding sittings in the 'Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court' (MHCAC) as per Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2017 and fee of sole Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules 2017. 5. This application is disposed of in the above terms.03-09-2025rkaIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025To1.M/s.Cheran Properties Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Mr.Karthick Palanisamy, Office at. No.78,Cheran Towers, Government Arts College Road, Coimbatore-641 018. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb O.P No. 34 of 2025N.ANAND VENKATESH J.rkaArb O.P No. 34 of 202503-09-2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This application is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 11, 21.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.