Arbitration Case No. 15734 of 2024 · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeals are dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.04.06.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : YesTmg3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025ToArbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. Copy to The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench…
Judgment
Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.06.2025CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHYArb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025andC.M.P.(MD)Nos.8273, 8275, 8278 of 2025 Arb. Appeal(MD)No.48 of 2025:Parthasarathi ... Appellant Vs.
M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, (Formerly known as Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited), Represented by its Power of Attorney, M.Kumar, No.6/1, 1st Floor, Golden Towers, Poovalur Road, Kailash Nagar, Lalgudi (TK), Trichy District-621 601.
Dhanalakshmi3.Balasubramaniyan ... RespondentsPRAYER: Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Arbitration Case No.15734 of 2024 on the file of the Arbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, dated 23.08.2024 received on 28.12.2024.For Appellant : Mr.G.Mohankumar1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025 Arb. Appeal(MD)No.49 of 2025:Parthasarathi ... Appellant Vs.1.M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, (Formerly known as Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited), Represented by its Power of Attorney, M.Kumar, No.6/1, 1st Floor, Golden Towers, Poovalur Road, Kailash Nagar, Lalgudi (TK), Trichy District-621 601. ... RespondentPRAYER: Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in Arbitration Case No.15734 of 2024 on the file of the Arbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, dated 29.03.2025.For Appellant : Mr.G.MohankumarArb. Appeal(MD)No.50 of 2025:Parthasarathi ... Appellant Vs.1.M/s. Shriram Finance Limited, (Formerly known as Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited), Represented by its Power of Attorney, M.Kumar, No.6/1, 1st Floor, Golden Towers, Poovalur Road, Kailash Nagar, Lalgudi (TK), Trichy District-621 601. ... RespondentPRAYER: Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order in I.A.No.3 of 2025 in Arbitration Case No.15734 of 2024 on the file of the Arbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, dated 29.03.2025.2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025 For Appellant : Mr.G.Mohankumar*****COMMON JUDGMENTThese Arbitration Appeals arise as against the order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli, in I.A.Nos.1 of 2024, 2 and 3 of 2025 in Arbitration Case No.15734 of 2024.2.The prayer in the Arbitration Appeals have become infructuous since the issue is already settled.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeals are dismissed as infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.04.06.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex : Yes / NoInternet : YesTmg3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025ToArbitration Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. Copy to The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025S.SRIMATHY, J., Tmg Arb. Appeal(MD)Nos.48 to 50 of 2025 04.06.20255/5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Arbitration Appeals are dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37.
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.