Madras High Court
Rajkumar Gunderao Gaikwad vs M/S.Cholamandalam Investment & on 24 July, 2023
ARB. O.P.(Com.Div) No.244 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.244 of 2023
1. Rajkumar Gunderao Gaikwad
2. Gunderao Anandrao Gaikwad ... Petitioners
vs.
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment &
Finance Company Ltd.,
No.45, Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed
Building II Floor, 2nd Line Beach,
Moore Street,
Parrys,
Chennai - 600 001.
Represented by its Authorized Signatory ... Respondent
Prayer : Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) filed under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to a) To set
aside the Arbitral Award, dated 17.02.2023, Arbitration Case
No.11/SG510/2022 passed by sole Arbitrator Mr.I.S. Gopinath in its
entirety and b) to direct the respondent to pay the costs and c) to grant
such further reliefs.
For petitioners : Mr.Shahed Ali Ansari
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Sunil Kumar
Shahed Ali Ansari
For respondent : Mr.D. Pradeep Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
ARB. O.P.(Com.Div) No.244 of 2023
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the Arbitral Award, dated
17.02.2023.
2. The petitioners have availed a loan from the respondent and had
entered into a loan contract. There arose disputes between the parties,
which resulted in the arbitration. The respondent being the claimant had
initiated arbitration by unilaterally appointing an Arbitrator which has
culminated in the passing of the impugned Arbitral Award, dated
17.02.2023.
3. The petitioners have challenged primarily the impugned Arbitral
Award dated 17.02.2023 on the ground that the respondent has
unilaterally appointed an Arbitrator which is not legally permissible in
view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC vs. HSCC (India) Limited
reported in 2020 20 SCC 760.
4. Admittedly as seen from the impugned Arbitral Award, an
Arbitrator has been appointed unilaterally by the respondent, who is a
party to the dispute. It is now settled law as laid down by the decision of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ARB. O.P.(Com.Div) No.244 of 2023
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins judgment, referred to supra, that
an unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party, who is interested in
a dispute cannot be made. In view of the settled law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins judgment, the Arbitral Award, dated
17.02.2023, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Section 34
petition has to be set aside by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned
Arbitral Award dated 17.02.2023 passed by the sole Arbitrator in
Arbitration Case No.11/SG510/2022 is hereby set aside and this petition
is allowed. However, liberty is granted to both the parties to initiate
fresh arbitration in accordance with law with regard to the dispute
between the petitioners and the respondent arising out of the loan
contract dated 13.07.2018 entered into between the petitioners and the
respondent.
24.07.2023
vsi2
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
Neutral citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ARB. O.P.(Com.Div) No.244 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
vsi2
Arb. O.P. (Com. Div.) No.244 of 2023
24.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
