Senthilkumar v. 1.M/s.Shriram Finance Ltd., Ponneri.2.Thangadurai
Case at a glance
- Bench
- ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Outcome
Allowed
2023 is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned arbitral award dated 08.12.2023 is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent to initiate fresh arbitration against the petitioner and other parties to the contract in accordance with law.…
Judgment
Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.556 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 13.03.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSEArb.O.P.(Comm. Div.) No.556 of 2024andA.No.6537 of 2024 Senthilkumar..Petitioner-vs-1.M/s.Shriram Finance Ltd., Ponneri.
Thangadurai..RespondentsPetition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been filed seeking to set aside the arbitral award dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. For Petitioner: Mr.B.VigneshFor R1: Mr.S.Thiyagarajan1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.556 of 2024ORDERThis petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the impugned arbitral award dated 08.12.2023 primarily on the ground that the impugned arbitral award has been passed against the petitioner by an Arbitrator appointed unilaterally by the first respondent.2. The respondent is represented by a learned counsel. As seen from the impugned arbitral award, it is clear that the Arbitrator, who has passed the impugned arbitral award, was appointed unilaterally by the first respondent without obtaining consent of the petitioner. The impugned arbitral award is also an exparte arbitral award.
The law is now well settled as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another vs. HSCC (India) Limited [(2020) 20 SCC 760] that a party to the dispute cannot unilaterally appoint an Arbitrator. Therefore, if the award is passed by such an Arbitrator appointed unilaterally, the said award is patently illegal. In the case on hand, being an unilateral appointment, which culminated in the passing of the impugned arbitral award, 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.556 of 2024necessarily, the impugned arbitral award has to be set aside by this Court.
Operative part
For the foregoing reasons, the impugned arbitral award dated 08.12.2023 is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent to initiate fresh arbitration against the petitioner and other parties to the contract in accordance with law. Consequently, Application No.6537 of 2024 is closed. No Costs. 13.03.2025rkm3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.OP.(comdiv) No.556 of 2024ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.rkmArb.O.P.(Comm. Div.) No.556 of 2024andA.No.6537 of 202413.03.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2023 is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
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.