Madras High Court
M/S Rohini Movie Park vs M/S Tsr Films Private Limited on 8 November, 2021
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.11.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
OSA (CAD) No.103 of 2021
and CMP No.17990 of 2021
M/s Rohini Movie Park,
No.171/2, Poonamalli Road,
Koyembedu, Chennai - 600 107 ... Appellant
Vs
M/s TSR Films Private Limited,
No.15, 5th Cross Street, Lake Area,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034
Represented by Mr.R.P.Balamurugan,
Chief Executive Officer ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section XIII of Commercial Divisions and
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015 read with
Order XXXVI Rule 11 of Original Side Rules against the Judgment and
Order dated 15.09.2021 passed in O.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of
original side of this court.
For the Appellant : Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj
For the Respondent : Mr.Dhanaram Ramachandran
*****
__________
Page 1 of 6
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The short grievance of the appellant is that the arbitration court
may have gone against its earlier order in finally deciding on the
ownership of a particular movable property in proceedings under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The appellant was the respondent in the initial proceedings
instituted under Section 9 of the said Act by the respondent herein
who had been engaged by the appellant for the purpose of supplying
material for the appellant's theatre shows. Disputes arose between the
parties as to the quality of service rendered by the respondent herein
and the obligation of the appellant herein to make regular payments
which culminated in the respondent invoking Section 9 of the said Act
and seeking return of its goods and material.
3. A limited order was initially passed on August 10, 2021 in
which it was observed that the matters as to which item belonged to
which party would be required to be decided on protracted evidence
and the same could be conveniently done in course of the arbitral
reference. An Arbitrator was appointed by the consent of the parties,
__________
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
but an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of
making an inventory of all the items at the theatre hall with a direction
on Advocate Commissioner to ensure that the items belonging to the
respondent were permitted to be carried away by the respondent
herein.
4. The immediate dispute pertains to a particular UPS
instrument. According to the appellant, the UPS was not mentioned in
the contract which is covered by the arbitration agreement and such
instrument stands completely beyond the pale of the matrix contract
governed by the arbitration agreement. The respondent, however,
asserts that in view of the previous assurance given to the court when
the initial order of August 10, 2021 was passed, the subsequent order
of September 15, 2021 by which the UPS has been directed to be
returned to the respondent cannot be questioned.
5. It is not necessary to go into the question of who owns the
UPS or whether the respondent may obtain immediate return thereof.
Since there is an issue between the parties as to the ownership of the
relevant instrument and a further disagreement of whether the dispute
__________
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
is covered by the arbitration agreement itself, the matter must be left
to the decision of the Arbitrator.
6. Accordingly, OSA (CAD) No.103 of 2021 is disposed of by
keeping the order impugned dated September 15, 2021 in abeyance
till December 15, 2021. It will be open to the parties to apply before
the Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act of 1996, in the meantime,
for appropriate orders pertaining to the UPS. If either party carries
such application to the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator will decide the same in
accordance with law without being influenced by the observations in
the order impugned herein dated September 15, 2021.
7. It is made clear that the rights of either party to the UPS have
not been decided herein and the issue has been left for the decision of
the Arbitrator, including as to whether such decision falls within the
purview of the arbitration agreement. It will also be open to the
Arbitrator to continue the present order of abeyance for any
reasonable period for the purpose of adjudicating on the relevant
issue.
__________
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
CMP No.17990 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to
costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
08.11.2021
Index : no
sra
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar
Original Side,
High Court,
Madras.
__________
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.
(sra)
OSA (CAD)No.103 of 2021
08.11.2021
__________
