Madras High Court
Ratnasabapathy Mohan vs Go Works Solutions Limited on 4 January, 2024
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
Ratnasabapathy Mohan
999, Stonebridge Circle,
Cookeville, Tennessee – 385 011. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Go Works Solutions Limited,
Having its office at:
178 Mount Road,
Shakthi Towers, 5th Floor,
Chennai – 600 002.
2.PrabhuramRamanthan
Director,
Go Works Solutions Limited,
Having its office at:
178 Mount Road,
Shakthi Towers, 5th Floor,
Chennai – 600 002
Also residing at:
27 Crestview Drive, Kendall Park,
New Jersey, USA
Also residing at:
No.39/9, Anusakthi Enclave,
Gandhinagar, 2nd Main Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
3.Rajeshkrishnamoorthy
Director,
Go Works Solutions Limited
Having office at:
178 Mount Road, Shakthi Towers,
5th Floor, Chennai – 2.
4.Priya Suresh
Director,
Go Works Solutions Limited
Having office at:
178 Mount Road, Shakthi Towers,
5th Floor, Chennai – 2.
5.Prema Ramanathan
Director,
Go Works Solutions Limited
Having office at:
178 Mount Road,
Shakthi Towers, 5th Floor,
Chennai – 2
Also residing at:
No.39/9, Anusakthi Enclave,
Gandhinagar, 2nd Main Road,
Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ... Respondents
Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint an independent and impartial
arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents
in terms of the Loan Convertible Agreement dated 01.11.2015 and to direct the
respondents to pay the cost of this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/8
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Rahul Jagannathan
For Respondents : Mr.Ravi Kumar Paul for
M/s.Paul and Paul and
Mr.J.Hudson Samuel
ORDER
This Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It has been filed on the strength of
the arbitration Clause under a convertible loan agreement signed between the
petitioner and the first respondent represented by the second and third
respondents.
2. The said convertible loan agreement dated 01.11.2015 was
guaranteed by guarantor named Mrs.Priya Venkatesh who is not a party to the
proceedings. As per the aforesaid agreement, the petitioner appears to have
invested a sum of Rs.1,05,00,000/- with the first respondent company which
was repayable in one years time together with interest at 18%.
3. It is the case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid amount
together with interest at 18% has not been repaid by the first respondent
represented by the second and third respondents. Hence, this Original Petition
has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
4. That apart, it is submitted that the other respondents who are the
Director of the petitioner have also given a promissory note acknowledging the
receipt of Rs.1,05,00,000/- under the aforesaid agreement over and above the
aforesaid amount of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. The petitioner has lent a further sum of
Rs.1,07,00,000/- in three installments of Rs.67,00,000/-, Rs.28,00,000/- and
Rs.12,00,000/- which has been acknowledged by the second and third
respondents who are the Directors of the first respondent.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has issued a legal notice
dated 05.05.2022, which was replied by the respondents through their counsel
on 20.05.2022 and another reply dated 24.05.2022 and therefore the petitioner
has invoked the Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on
28.09.2022, which there has been no response till the date of the filing of the
Original Petition.
6. Defending the proceedings on behalf of the fourth and fifth
respondents, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that the
petitioner had instituted a suit before the Chancery Court, Putnam County,
Tennessee, in Docket No.2020-104 inrepsect of all the amounts covered by the
convertible loan agreement dated 01.11.2015 and the amounts allegedly due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
and acknowledged by the second and third respondents herein by a letter dated
01.12.2018 for the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,07,00,000/- [Rs.67,00,000+
Rs.28,00,000 + and Rs.12,00,000/-] and that the suit was also decreed by the
said Court on 28.05.2021.
7. It is therefore submitted that the petition under Section 11(6) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not therefore maintainable. That
apart, it is submitted that there is a suppression of fact and therefore on this
count also this Original Petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. By way of rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that although the suit was filed in Docket No.2020-104 before the
Chancery Court for Putnam County, Tennessee by the petitioner. The petitioner
will have difficulty in enforcing the judgment in terms of Section 13 of the
CPC.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused
the counter filed by the fourth respondent on behalf of the second, fourth and
fifth respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
10. The first respondent has closed its operation and therefore
notice that was taken out on the first respondent has remained unserved. The
second respondent has not entered appearance, although an undertaking was
also given on behalf of the second respondent that a vakalat will be filed. The
fourth respondent has filed a counter on behalf of the fourth and fifth
respondents.
11. Be that as it may, the present Original Petition filed under
Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable,
as the petitioner has already work out the remedy before the Chancery Court for
Putnam County, Tennessee in Docket No.2020-104 and has secured an exparte
judgment from the said court on 28.05.2021. It is open for the petitioner to
approach the Court for recognizing and enforcing the decree against the
defendants therein who are also the respondents herein. Only in the event of
the decree being declared as unenforceable, the parties can be put to the
position prior to the aforesaid judgment and decree of the Court dated
28.05.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
12. Since the scope of enquiry under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited, this Original Petition is not
maintainable as of today. The petitioner could not seeks two remedies for the
same relief one before this Court by way of a reference before the Arbitrator
and before the Chancery Court for Putnam County, Tennessee.
13. Therefore, this Original Petition is dismissed with the above
observations.
04.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
jas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
jas
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)No.376 of 2023
04.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
