Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Mr.Anushh v. M/s. VGN Projects

    Arb.O.P. No.17 of 2024

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

    DATED: 09.12.2024

    CORAM

    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

    Arb.O.P. No.17 of 2024

    1. Mr.Anushh Veeraraghavan

    2. Mrs. Janaki Veeraraghavan ... Petitioners

    vs.

    1. M/s. VGN Projects Estates Private Limited Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, No. Y-222, Kimberly Towers,

    2ndAvenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040

    2. Mr. S. Vigneshwaran ... Respondents

    PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rule 10 of the Madras High Court Arbitration Rules, 2020, to terminate the mandate of the 2nd Respondent and consequently, substitute him with an alternative Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Petitioners and 1 st Respondent and to direct the respondents to pay the costs. For Petitioner : Mr.Dinuprashanth

    For Respondent : Ms.T.R.Varsha for R1

    1/4

    **********

    ORDER

    This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') to terminate the mandate of the 2ndrespondent and consequently, substitute him with an alternative Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the Petitioners and the 1strespondent.

    2. I have heard Mr.Dinuprashanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. TR. Varsha, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent.

    3. The learned counsel for the first respondent has filed a counter stating that since the appointment of the second respondent was unilateral, it is not maintainable and the same is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc Vs. HSCC(India) Limited, reported in (2019) 8 MLJ 623.

    4. I have gone through the records and admittedly, the arbitration proceedings have commenced only based on the unilateral appointment

    2/4

    made by first respondent.

    5. In view of the same, there is no impediment for terminating the mandate of the 2ndrespondent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to appoint a new Arbitrator viz., Mr.D.Ferdinand, Advocate having office address at 47/1, Rams Surabi Apartments, 1% Main Road, R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028 (Tel: +91 44 4353 5443; Cell: +91 98410 23434) as the Sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator is directed to enter upon reference and adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law.

    6. The learned Arbitrator is entitled to fix his fees as per the Schedule-IV to the Act. This Court further requests the learned Arbitrator to endeavor to decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible, however, not later than six (6) months from the date of his entering into reference.

    7. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is allowed.

    09.12.2024

    rkp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

    3/4

    P.B.BALAJI, J.,

    rkp

    Arb.O.P. No.17 of 2024

    09.12.2024

    4/4

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Mr.Anushh v. M/s. VGN Projects
    (Dec 9, 2024)