Skip to content
The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA O.P.No.555 of 2019 and A.No.5216 of 2019 Arbitration award setasideIn the result, the OP is allowed and the impugned Award is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20.12.2019 good super
[1/11, 11:30] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.12.2019 CORAM The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA O.P.No.555 of 2019 and A.No.5216 of 2019 Mr. G.G. Srinivasan M/s. Venkateswara Diagnostice Centre, Medavakkam, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs. J. Bhuvanasankari No.11/237, Bharathi 1st Street, Medavakkam, Chennai- 600 100. …Petitioners Vs. Mr. K. Babu Mrs. Meera Babu Respondents Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying to set aside the Award dated 16.05.2019 and allow the counter claim of the petitioners. 1/36 [1/11, 11:30] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019 For petitioners : Ms. Tanya Kappor Mr. Yashwanth Rajan For Respondents : Mr. K. V. Babu, caveator counsel O R D E R The unsuccessful respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal has challenged the award in the above OP. The Main grounds of challenge by the petitioner is that the Arbitral Tribunal has not comprehended the terms of the contract entered into between the claimant and the respondent, as a result of which the Arbitral award has dealt with issues totally out of the purview of the Memorandum of Understanding which by itself is not admissible as the same was not registered. It is necessary to narrate the events culminating in the passing of the award which has led to the challenging of the award. The parties are referred to as the claimants and respondents respectively. Claimant’s Case 3.1. The claimants had moved the arbitral proceedings and had 2/36 [1/11, 11:31] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019 This last contravention must be understood with a caveat. An Arbitral Tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract,but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. Construction of the terms of a contact in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair-minded or reasonable person could do.” 7.10. Therefore on a conspectus of the facts narrated hereinabove and the dicta laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is clearly evident that award suffers from a patent illegality since the learned Arbitrator has not adverted to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding particularly the provisos to Clause 1.7 thereby violating the provisions of Section 28(3) of the Act. 35/36 [1/11, 11:31] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019 P .T.ASHA, J. mrn In the result, the OP is allowed and the impugned Award is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20.12.2019 Index:Yes / No mrn O.P.No.555 of 2019 and A.No.5216 of 2019 36/36
You may also like...