M/S.Rinijosh Enterprises vs M/S.Gharwala Tiffin Pvt. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 24949 Mad

                                                                               CRP.Sr.No.105133 of 2021

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                 DATED: 17.12.2021
                                                       CORAM:
                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
                                             C.R.P.Sr.No.105133 of 2021

                     1.M/s.Rinijosh Enterprises,
                       Partnershp Firm,
                       Represented by its Partner,
                       Mr.Samuel Joshua,
                       No.1/1, LIC Quarters,
                       Appatro Salai, Velankanni School,
                       KK Nagar, Chennai – 600 078.

                     2.D.Samuel Joshua,

                     3.Rini Steff                                                       ..Petitioners

                                                           Vs.

                     M/s.Gharwala Tiffin Pvt. Ltd.,
                     Rep. By its Director Mr.Nikhil Kaushik,
                     No.132, Sterling Road, Nungambakkam,
                     Chennai – 600 034.                                               ..Respondent
                     Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
                     against the final order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned sole
                     Arbitrator Mr.S.N.Ravichandran in IA.No.3 of 2021 in Arbitration file No.1
                     / 2020.
                                          For Petitioner         : Mrs.Mathew Berchmans




                     1/4


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                 CRP.Sr.No.105133 of 2021




                                                        ORDER

Challenge in this revision is to the rejection of an application

filed by one of the parties to an arbitration proceedings under Section 11 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging the very appointment of

the Arbitrator on the ground that it is opposed to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Another

Vs. HSCC (India) Limited reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1517. The

Arbitrator has rejected the application on the ground that is not a ground for

challenge under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Concliation Act. The

jurisdiction of this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India with arbitration proceedings is very very limited. Therefore, I do

not think this revision can be entertained at this stage.

2.However, it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioners

to raise an issue relating to appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 16 of

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Arbitrator and require him to

rule upon his jurisdiction on the ground that the very appointment is illegal.

If the Arbitrator decides to proceed with arbitration despite such objection,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Sr.No.105133 of 2021

the very same ground can be urged in an application under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act by way of a challenge to the award. This

civil revision stands rejected with the above observations. No costs.

17.12.2021

kkn

Index:No Internet:Yes Speaking

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Sr.No.105133 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

KKN

C.R.P.Sr.No.105133 of 2021

17.12.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis