Madras High Court
Petitioner vs T.M.K.A.Ahmed Meeran on 22 December, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
CRP.No.1466 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 19.06.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2023
CORAM :
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
C.R.P. No.1466 of 2020
M/s.AG Melco Techno Services Private Limited,
Formerly known as
M/s.ETA Melco Techno Services Private Limited,
7th Floor, Khivaraj Complex II,
480, Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035.
Represented by its Director,
R.Kannan
(Cause title accepted vide order of Court dated 28.07.2020 made in
CMP.No.7901/2020 in CRP SR.No.46312 of 2020)
... Petitioner
Vs.
T.M.K.A.Ahmed Meeran ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated
29.11.2019 in I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in O.S.No.5055 of 2017 on the file of
the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ravi
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Manohar Gupta
For Respondent : Mr.K.M.Aasim Shehzad
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.1466 of 2020
for M/s.BFS Legal
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition had been filed to set aside the fair and
decretal order dated 29.11.2019 in I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in O.S.No.5055 of
2017 on the file of the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2. The learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits
that the Revision Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.5055 of
2017. The suit was filed for recovery of money from the Defendant in the
suit. In the lease agreement, it was stated that after vacating the property,
the landlord has to refund the amount (minus) rental amount. After vacating
the property, the Plaintiff had sought refund of the amount which was
already deposited.
3. Therefore, the Plaintiff was forced to file a suit in O.S.No.5055 of
2017 on the file of the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai. The Defendant had entered appearance. After entered appearance,
the Defendant had filed I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in O.S.No.5055 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
seeking indulgence of the Court as the subject matter of the dispute to
Arbitration, claiming that in the agreement between the Plaintiff and the
Defendant there was a reference to arbitration clause.
4. The petition in I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in O.S.No.5055 of 2017 was
resisted by the Plaintiff stating that the agreement entered into between the
Plaintiff and the Defendant was Rs.20/-, the stamp papers were not properly
stamped and also it was not registered. Therefore, the learned Counsel for
the Plaintiff as Respondent objected to the contention of the Defendant in
the suit to refer the subject matter of the dispute to the Arbitration.
5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had relied on the ruling of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMS Tea Estates Pvt Ltd Vs.
Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd reported in 2011 (4) CTC 574. Inspite of the
same, the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had
misdirected herself and allowed the petition filed by the Defendant which is
against the reported ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff
before the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
Therefore, the Plaintiff in O.S.No.5055 of 2017 had filed this Revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Petition seeking to set aside the order of the learned XIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai had allowing the I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in
O.S.No.5055 of 2017 dated 29.11.2019.
6. Further, the learned Senior Counsel for the Revision Petitioner
submitted that earlier when the CRP came up for hearing, the earlier Judge
who have presided over the Roster had adjourned the case stating that the
rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff before the Trial Court
proceeded with the case and reserved for judgment stating that the rulings
cited by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff before the Trial Court had been
referred to Constitutional Bench. Therefore, case can be taken up after
judgment of the Constitutional Bench, the learned Counsel for the Revision
Petitioner also relied judgment of the Constitutional Bench in the case of
N.N.Global Mercantile Private Limited Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd and
Ors reported in MANU/SC/0445/2023. The relevant para of the said
judgment reads as under:
“109.The view taken in SMS Tea Estates (supra) as
followed in Garware (supra) and by the Bench in
Dharmaratnakara Rai Bahadur Arcot Narainswamy Mudaliar
Chattram and other Charities v. Bhaskar Raju and Brothers and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Ors. MANU/SC/0190/2020 : (2020) 4 SCC 612 as to the effect
of an unstamped contract containing an Arbitration Agreement
and the steps to be taken by the Court, represent the correct
position in law as explained by us hereinbefore N.N.Gobal
(supra) was wrongly decided, when it held to the contrary and
overruled SMS Tea Estates (supra) and Garware (supra) and
114.An Arbitration Agreement, within the meaning of
Section 7 of the Act, which attracts stamp duty and which is not
stamped or insufficiently stamped, cannot be acted upon, in
view of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless following
impounding and payment of the requisite duty, necessary
certificate is provided under Section 42 of the Stamp Act.”
7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.N.Global
Mercantile Private Limited Vs. Indo Unique Flame Ltd and Ors reported
in MANU/SC/0445/2023 in which it has been reiterated for Arbitration
cannot be initiated based on the directions of the agreement which is
threatened or not duly stamped properly. The stamped papers are not a
registered agreement.
8. In the light of the reported rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned XIII
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai regarding the dispute in
O.S.No.5055 of 2017 pending on the file of the learned XIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai regarding the subject matter of Arbitration by mis-
directing herself to the earlier rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by
the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff before the Trial Court is found un-
acceptable and perverse.
9. During the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid guidelines
regarding the Arbitration of Civil disputes. In the said Constitution Bench
rulings also the earlier position of law relied by the learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff before the Trial Court had been reiterated. Therefore, this Civil
Revision Petition is to be allowed.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. The
order passed by the learned XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai
in I.A.No.5744 of 2018 in O.S.No.5055 of 2017 dated 29.11.2019 is set
aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.12.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
jas
To
1.The XIII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court,
Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
jas
Order made in
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
