Madras High Court
Laly George vs Sipcot Ltd on 5 May, 2021
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.05.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
and
C.M.P. Nos. 8386, 8387, 8388, 8389, 8391 and 8394 of 2021
O.S.A. No. 202 of 2021:-
Laly George
Sole Proprietor
M/s.Gee 2 Appparels
Plot No. K-53(2), SIPCOT Apparel Park,
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur – 602117. ... Appellant
vs.
SIPCOT Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, R/W Order XXXVI Rule 1 of
Original Side Rules R/W Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside
the common order dated 19.02.2021 passed in A.No. 2604 of 2020 by
the Learned Judge of this Court and allow this Original Side Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr. P.Wilson (Senior Counsel)
for Mr. Richardson Wilson
For Respondent : Mr. Sudharsana Sundar
(Standing Counsel)
O.S.A. No. 203 of 2021:-
Laly George
Sole Proprietor
M/s.Gee 2 Appparels
Plot No. K-53(2), SIPCOT Apparel Park,
Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur – 602117. ... Appellant
vs.
SIPCOT Ltd.
Rep. by its Managing Director
No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondent
Prayer: This Original Side Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, R/W Order XXXVI Rule 1 of
Original Side Rules R/W Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside
the common order dated 19.02.2021 passed in O.A.No. 566 of 2020 by
the Learned Judge of this Court and allow this Original Side Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr. P.Wilson, Senior Counsel
for Mr. Richardson Wilson
For Respondent : Mr. Sudharsana Sundar,
Standing Counsel
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J)
(through video conferencing)
Heard Mr. P.Wilson, Learned Senior Counsel for Mr. Richardson
Wilson, Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Sudharsana Sundar,
Learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the Respondent, and
perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the
parties.
2. The Respondent has been established by the Government of Tamil
Nadu as an undertaking to develop industrial growth in the State and in
furtherance thereto, it had acquired lands for allotting the same to various
entrepreneurs in industry. The land measuring an extent of 2.74 acres in
Plot No. K-53(2) at SIPCOT Apparel Park, Irungattukottai,
Sriperumbudur – 602117 had been allotted by the Respondent to the
Appellant by Order No. P&SP/AP/IRU/GA/2007 dated 24.04.2007 for
the manufacture of readymade garments and on receipt of cost, Lease
Deed dated 13.09.2007 has been executed, which has been registered as
Document No. 20316 of 2007 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Sriperumbudur. The terms of that Lease Deed for the said allotment
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
requires that the allottee must commence construction of building within
6 months and complete the same within 24 months from the date of
allotment and that commercial production / trial production shall have to
be commenced within 30 months from the date of allotment, failing
which the allotment could be cancelled and the amount paid forfeited.
According to the Respondent, the Appellant had not satisfied those
mandatory requirements and the explanation submitted for the show
cause notice issued in that regard was not satisfactory. It was then
proceeded by the Respondent in the Order No. P-III/AP/IRU/Gee 2/2007
dated 26.09.2020 to cancel the allotment of the plot made to the
Appellant, who was required to execute surrender deed within 15 days
from the date of receipt of that order, failing which resumption of plot
was to be made under Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1975. The Appellant by letter dated
10.10.2020 invoked clause 35 of the Lease Deed dated 13.09.2007
between the parties and sought for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve
the disputes that has arisen between them. As no arbitrator had been
appointed by the Respondent, an application under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was made by the Appellant for
the same in O.P. No. 598 of 2020 before the Original Side of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
The Appellant had further made applications in O.A. No. 566 of 2020
and A.No. 2604 of 2020 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Original Side of this Court for restraining
the Respondent from leasing out the property to third parties pending
arbitral proceedings and to stay the letter dated 26.09.2020 issued by the
Respondent respectively. The Learned Judge, who reserved orders in the
applications in O.A. No. 566 of 2020 and A.No. 2604 of 2020 on
17.12.2020, pronounced the common order on 19.02.2021 refusing the
interim reliefs to the Appellant, which is assailed in these appeals.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant contends that
interim reliefs sought in the applications had been declined solely by
referring to the observations made in the report of the Advocate
Commissioner, who had been appointed to inspect the property, without
taking into account the evidence available to prove the contrary. It is
further brought to notice that by another order dated 11.01.2021 in O.P.
No. 598 of 2020, the Court has appointed Thiru. N.L.Rajah, Senior
Counsel as arbitrator, to enter upon reference and adjudicate the disputes
inter se the parties in which the proceedings have already commenced
and the Appellant has also made an application under Section 17 of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Learned Arbitrator
seeking interim relief.
4. Having regard to the fact that an arbitrator has been appointed to
adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties and the
Appellant has also made application for interim relief before him, this
Court is of the considered view that it would be expedient in the interests
of justice that all aspects of the matter are relegated for determination
afresh by the Learned Arbitrator instead delving into the disputed
questions of fact in these appeals and thereby avoid multiplicity of
proceedings. In other words, it would suffice to clarify here that the
Appellant is not precluded from placing materials before the Learned
Arbitrator to controvert the observations made in the report of the
Advocate Commissioner, if it is relied by the Respondent, and that the
Learned Arbitrator while passing any interim order or final award, as he
may deem fit, shall take into consideration the entire evidence lead by
both parties, uninhibited and uninfluenced by the conclusions arrived by
the Court in the common order, which is impugned in these appeals.
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
5. In the result, the Original Side Appeals are disposed on the
aforesaid terms. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (P.D.A., J.)
05.05.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
dm
Note: Issue order copy by 13.05.2021.
http://www.judis.nic.in
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR,J.
and
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
dm
O.S.A. Nos. 202 and 203 of 2021
05.05.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
