உணவக சேவை நிலுவைத் தொகை வழக்கில் சாய் பல்கலைக்கழகம் ரூ.3.90 கோடி வங்கி உத்தரவாதம் வழங்க சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு* *மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் அசன் முகம்மது ஜின்னா ஆஜரான வழக்கில் நீதிபதி கே. குமரேஷ் பாபு உத்தரவு; Novation ஒப்பந்தத்தால் நடுவர் மன்ற விதி அமலுக்கு வரும் எனத் தீர்ப்பு*
[02/08, 09:03] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx0LkUOsnRk6P1b-3vlNWxc7raClqCbaPS?si=ZqRSQKwW6vZo_WJH
[02/08, 09:09] sekarreporter1: *Madras High Court Directs Sai University to Furnish ₹3.90 Crore Bank Guarantee in Catering Dues Dispute*
*Senior Counsel Hasan Mohammed Jinnah Successfully Secures Interim Protection; Court Holds Novation Agreement Enables Arbitration and Orders Bank Guarantee Pending Arbitral Proceedings*
Background of the Case
M/s. Rassense Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in providing catering and facility management services, approached the Madras High Court seeking interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose out of a catering services agreement originally entered into between Sai University and a third-party contractor on 19.09.2022. Subsequently, following an internal restructuring of the contractor’s business, the catering division was transferred to Rassense Pvt. Ltd., and a Deed of Novation was executed among the original contractor, Sai University and the applicant, substituting Rassense in place of the original contractor.
After taking over the contract, Rassense continued to provide catering services to Sai University. According to the applicant, despite acknowledging the invoices, the University failed to clear outstanding dues amounting to ₹3.29 crores. Though the University terminated the agreement on 16.04.2026, the outstanding amount remained unpaid. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause and arbitration proceedings were yet to commence, the applicant sought a direction from the High Court directing Sai University to furnish an unconditional and irrevocable Bank Guarantee for ₹3.90 crores to secure its claim pending arbitration.
The Arbitration Application came up for hearing before Justice K. Kumaresh Babu.
Arguments of Hasan Mohammed Jinnah
Appearing for the applicant, Senior Counsel Hasan Mohammed Jinnah, instructed by Mr. A. Damodaran, submitted that by virtue of the Deed of Novation, the applicant had legally stepped into the shoes of the original contractor and had continued rendering catering services to Sai University. The University had acknowledged the invoices raised by the applicant but failed to settle the outstanding dues.
The learned Senior Counsel further contended that Clause 11 of the agreement specifically provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration and that the applicant was ready and willing to initiate arbitral proceedings. Pending such proceedings, unless the respondent was directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee, the applicant’s substantial monetary claim would remain unsecured. He therefore sought an interim direction directing Sai University to furnish a Bank Guarantee for ₹3.90 crores until the arbitral proceedings were concluded.
The respondent University opposed the application contending that the applicant was not a party to the original agreement dated 19.09.2022, that the Deed of Novation did not independently contain an arbitration clause, and therefore the arbitration clause contained in the original agreement could not be invoked by the applicant. It was further contended that the applicant’s remedy, if any, was only by way of a civil suit and not through arbitration. The University also disputed the claim on merits by alleging deficiencies in the catering services rendered by the applicant.
After considering the rival submissions, Justice K. Kumaresh Babu held that the Deed of Novation clearly demonstrated the intention of the parties to substitute the applicant in place of the original contractor under the existing agreement. The Court observed that once the applicant had been substituted through the Novation Agreement, it was entitled to invoke the arbitration clause contained in the original agreement. Consequently, the objection raised by Sai University regarding the maintainability of the arbitration proceedings was held to be wholly unsustainable.
The Court further held that although the University’s defence regarding the quality of services would have to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator, the applicant’s monetary claim deserved interim protection until arbitration commenced and appropriate orders under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act could be obtained from the Arbitrator.
Accordingly, the High Court directed Sai University to furnish a Bank Guarantee for ₹3.90 crores valid for a period of six months. The Court further directed the applicant to initiate arbitration proceedings within eight weeks, while granting liberty to seek appropriate interim protection before the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court also clarified that the Bank Guarantee shall remain subject to the orders to be passed by the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act.
[02/08, 08:53] sekarreporter1: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU Arb Appln.No.973 of 2026 M/s.Rassense Pvt. Ltd, A Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, Having its registered office at No.15, 16, 17, Brindavan Nagar, Yogam Garden, Valasaravakkam, Thiruvallur – 600 087. Rep., by its Authorised Signatory, Mrs.S.Ramadevi. … Applicant Vs M/s.Sai University, Having its office at One Hub Chennai, Paiyanur, Old Mahabaliburam Road, Chennai – 603 104. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER:- This Arbitration Application had been filed https://www.sekarreporter.com/the-honble-mr-justice-k-kumaresh-babu-arb-appln-no-973-of-2026-m-s-rassense-pvt-ltd-a-company-incorporated-under-the-companies-act-2013-having-its-registered-office-at-no-15-16-17-brindavan-n/
[02/08, 08:55] sekarreporter1: “For Appellant(s): Mr.Hasan Mohamed Jinnah Sr., counsel for Mr.A.Damodaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.Gautam S.Raman
——
ORDER
The present Arbitration Application had been filed to direct the respondent”
[02/08, 10:00] sekarreporter1: உணவக சேவை நிலுவைத் தொகை வழக்கில் சாய் பல்கலைக்கழகம் ரூ.3.90 கோடி வங்கி உத்தரவாதம் வழங்க சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் உத்தரவு* *மூத்த வழக்கறிஞர் அசன் முகம்மது ஜின்னா ஆஜரான வழக்கில் நீதிபதி கே. குமரேஷ் பாபு உத்தரவு; Novation ஒப்பந்தத்தால் நடுவர் மன்ற விதி அமலுக்கு வரும் எனத் தீர்ப்பு* https://www.sekarreporter.com/%e0%ae%89%e0%ae%a3%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%95-%e0%ae%9a%e0%af%87%e0%ae%b5%e0%af%88-%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b2%e0%af%81%e0%ae%b5%e0%af%88%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8d-%e0%ae%a4%e0%af%8a%e0%ae%95%e0%af%88-%e0%ae%b5/
[02/08, 12:30] sekarreporter1:
