Madras High Court
Ion Exchange (India) Limited vs Chennai Petroleum Corporation ... on 11 January, 2022
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
O.S.A. (CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
O.S.A. (CAD) No.85 of 2021:
Ion Exchange (India) Limited,
Environment Division,
R-14, T.T.C. MIDC, Rabale,
Navi Mumbai – 400 701. .. Appellant
Vs
1.Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited,
536, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.Rajendra Singh Solanki,
Sole Arbitrator,
B-10/7269 Sector-B,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070. .. Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
O.S.A. (CAD) No.101 of 2021:
Ion Exchange (India) Limited,
Environment Division,
R-14, T.T.C. MIDC, Rabale,
Navi Mumbai – 400 701. .. Appellant
Vs
1.Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited,
536, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.Rajendra Singh Solanki,
Sole Arbitrator,
B-10/7269 Sector-B,
Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi – 110 070.
3.Standing Conference of Public Enterprises,
1st Floor, Core-8, SCOPE Complex,
7, Lodi Road, New Delhi-110 003. .. Respondents
Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 and under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read
with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated
30.04.2021 in Application Nos.8474 of 2018 and 270 of 2019 in
O.P.No.880 of 2015.
__________
Page 2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Ramakrishnan
Viraraghavan
Senior Counsel
for M/s.G.Sivashankaran
For the Respondents : Mr.Raghav
for respondent No.1
in both appeals
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
After arguing the appeals for some length on few issues, which
precisely were in reference to Section 12 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (unamended provision of Section 12), learned
senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that if liberty is
given to him to pursue his case within the framework of Section 14 of
the Act of 1996, he may not press these appeals. The appellant seeks
to amend the original petition as referred in the schedule of the
Application No.270 of 2019 found at page 27 of the typed set of
papers filed along with O.S.A. (CAD) No.85 of 2021. The precise
reason to seek liberty is the expiry of the period for making an arbitral
reference.
__________
Page 3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal
of the appeals, however, with liberty to take remedy under Section 14
of the Act of 1996 by amending the pending Original Petition or by
filing a fresh Original Petition for the aforesaid.
3. The prayer of the learned senior counsel for the appellant has
been opposed by learned counsel for the first respondent. He submits
that impliedly the appellant has consented for the extension of time to
the arbitration proceedings. He informed this court that an application
is pending even in reference to Section 14 of the Act of 1996.
Therefore, if liberty is given by this court to pursue the cause by the
appellant under Section 14 of the Act of 1996, it may not be without
any observation on the issue, as an application has already been filed
and is pending and the same can be pressed into service by the
appellant.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and find that so far
as the challenge to the order dated 30.04.2021 is concerned, the
issues were argued largely in reference to Section 12 of the Act of
1996 (unamended provision) for the reason that proceedings were
__________
Page 4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
already initiated prior to the Amendment Act of 2015.
5. In view of the above, while dismissing the appeals as
withdrawn, liberty as sought by the appellant, is granted and,
accordingly, the parties would be at liberty to pursue their case. If the
first respondent intends to oppose the Original Petition filed under
Section 14 of the Act of 1996 on all available grounds, they can do so.
If the course stipulated under Section 14 of the Act of 1996 is taken by
the appellant, it goes without saying that the issues therein would be
decided by the learned Single Judge without being influenced by the
impugned order dated 30.04.2021. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.17241 and 16484 of 2021 are closed.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
11.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
bbr
To:
The Sub Assistant Registrar
Original Side
High Court, Madras.
__________
Page 5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
bbr
O.S.A. (CAD) Nos.85 and 101 of 2021
11.01.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
