Madras High Court
Ravindranathan S/O.Singaravelu vs M/S.Ford India Private Limited on 3 January, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
CMP No.23194 of 2023
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 03.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CMP No.23194 of 2023
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
Ravindranathan S/o.Singaravelu
Ex-Promoter/Director,
M/s.MPL Cars Pvt Ltd (Under Insolvency)
Residing at No.6/43, Navratna Gardens,
IInd Cross Street, Ekkaduthangal,
Chenna 600 002. ...Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
1. M/s.Ford India Private Limited,
Rep. by its General Manager/Auhtorized Signatory
Dealership Development, Mr.Saurabh Mkhija,
S.P. Koil Post, Maraimalai Nagar,
Chengalpattu – 603 034.
2. MPL Cars Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Resolution Professional,
Mr.K.Sivalingam,
F-1, Abdul Regency, Ist Floor,
No.6, South Mada Street, Srinagar Colony,
Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ...Respondents/Respondents
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.23194 of 2023
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 151 of Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, to grant leave to the appellant/third party to file,
contest this appeal against the order passed by the learned Judge dated
12.01.2023 in Arb.O.P. (Com.Div). No.490 of 2022 and Application
No,4189 of 2022.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sai Krishnan
for Ms.K.N.Shanthi
For Respondents : Mr.V.V.Sivakumar, for R1
R2 – Sd – No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order made under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, setting aside an award that is passed in
favour of the second respondent Company.
2. The petitioner claims that he is an ex-promoter of the second
respondent and he has given personal guarantee to the secured creditor of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
the second respondent and if the second respondent is able to realise the
award that would be helpful for the second respondent to discharge his
debts, so that the petitioner would not be burdened with the debts of the
second respondent as a guarantor. We do not think this can be a ground to
permit the petitioner to challenge the order under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act, setting aside the award. It is open to the second respondent
which is a private limited Company/a juristic person to challenge the award.
3. We do not see any reason to permit the petitioner to challenge
the order under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Hence this application is
dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal in OSA (CAD) SR No. 38617 of 2023
is rejected at SR stage itself.
(R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) (R.SAKTHIVEL, J.)
03.01.2024
jv
Internet:Yes
Index: No
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
jv
in OSA (CAD) SR No.38617 of 2023
03.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
