M/S.Ingersoll - Rand (India) Ltd vs M/S. Shriram Epc Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 4527 Mad

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4527 Mad
Judgement Date : 8 March, 2022

Madras High Court

M/S.Ingersoll - Rand (India) Ltd vs M/S. Shriram Epc Limited on 8 March, 2022

                                                                                Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED :      08.03.2022

                                                                CORAM

                                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

                                               Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021

                     M/s.Ingersoll - Rand (India) Ltd.,
                     1st Floor, Subramanya Arcade
                     No.12/1, Bannerghatta Road
                     Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 029                                    ... Petitioner

                                                          Vs.

                     M/s. Shriram EPC Limited
                     Represented by its Managing Director
                     4th Floor, Sigapani Achi Building
                     No.18/3, Rukmani Lakshmipathi Road
                     Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.                                        .... Respondent

                                  Original Petition filed under Section 11 (6)(a) & (c) of the Arbitration
                     and Conciliation Act, 1996             read with Rule 2 of the appointment of
                     Arbitrators of Madras High Court Scheme, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator for
                     adjudication of disputes arising from and out of the Purchase Order dated
                     02.03.2015 and to pay costs.
                                        For Petitioner      : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani
                                                             for Mr.V.Raghavachari



                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021




                                        For Respondent        : Mr.Balamurali
                                                                of M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh (Law Firm)

                                                               ORDER

In the captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' ['Arb.OP' for the sake

of brevity] which has been presented in this Court on 28.10.2021,

Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Balamurali of

M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh (Law Firm) on behalf of lone respondent are

before this Court.

2. The proceedings made by this Court in the previous listing on

01.03.2022 reads as follows:

'Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 27.01.2022, which reads as follows:

'M/s.Sivakumar and Suresh, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and requests for an adjournment made is on the ground that the case papers were not served on them. The learned counsel for the applicant is directed to serve the papers on the learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the day.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021

List on 10.02.2022.'

2. Today, Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.Balamurali of M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh (Law Firm) on behalf of respondent are before this Court.

3. Adverting to aforementioned earlier proceedings dated 27.01.2022, learned counsel for respondent submits that he has not been favoured with one set of papers. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to do the needful forthwith.

List one week hence. List on 08.03.2022.'

3. Adverting to the aforementioned proceedings made by this Court in

the previous listing, aforementioned two learned counsel submit in unison

that the facts have been correctly captured in the proceedings made in the

previous listing.

4. This Court is informed that there is no disputation or disagreement

regarding the existence of aforementioned arbitration clause i.e., arbitration

agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of 'The

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A

and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. In the light of

sub-section (6A) of Section 11 and elucidation of the same qua Mayavati

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021

Trading principle qua ratio in Mayavati Trading Private Limited Vs.

Pradyuat Deb Burman reported in (2019) 8 SCC 714, this Court proceeds

to appoint a sole Arbitrator. Before doing that, this Court deems it

appropriate to extract and reproduce paragraph 10 of Mayavati Trading

case law, which reads as follows:

'10. This being the position, it is clear that the law prior to the 2015 Amendment that has been laid down by this Court, which would have included going into whether accord and satisfaction has taken place, has now been legislatively overruled. This being the position, it is difficult to agree with the reasoning contained in the aforesaid judgments, as Section 11(6-

A) is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement and is to be understood in the narrow sense as has been laid down in the judgment in Duro Felguera SA.' (underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight)

5. In the light of the narrative thus far, Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj, Advocate

with address for service at No.6, II Floor, SICCI Building (Annex), Chennai

- 108 [Mob:.9841024778, E-mail: [email protected]] is appointed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P (Com.Div) No.262 of 2021

as sole Arbitrator. Learned Arbitrator is requested to enter upon reference,

adjudicate the lis i.e., arbitrable disputes that have arisen between the parties

i.e., Petitioner and Respondent Companies by conducting sittings in

'Arbitration and Conciliation Centre under the aegis of this Court' (MHCAC)

in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules,

2017 and learned Arbitrator's fee shall be as per Madras High Court

Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees)

Rules 2017.