Madras High Court
R.Chandrasekaran Alias Valasai ... vs M/S.Bollineni Developers Ltd on 4 February, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
OSA.No.238 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.02.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
OSA.No.238 of 2024
and
CMP.Nos.28273 & 28272 of 2024
R.Chandrasekaran Alias Valasai Chandran .. Appellant
vs
M/s.Bollineni Developers Ltd.,
Registered Office At 1st Floor,
Progressive Towers,
6-2-913/914,
Khariatabad, Hyderabad-500 004
With Branch Office at
87/39, Poes Garden, Chennai-600 086
Though its Director B.Krishnaiah
Mr.Justice K.Sampath (Deceased)
Sole Arbitrator
No.11, Second Street, Jagadambal Colony
Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. .. Respondents
(Not pursued)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
OSA.No.238 of 2024
Prayer : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI of the Original Side Rules
read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, against the Order dated
19.12.2019 passed by this Court in OP.No.307 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mrs.S.Hemalatha
For Respondents : Mr.R.Thiagarajan
for Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J.)
This intra-Court appeal is filed in terms of Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act') challenging order
dated 19.12.2019 in O.P.No.307 of 2013.
2.We have heard the detailed submissions of Mrs.S.Hemalatha,
learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Mrs.Vasudha Thiagarajan, learned counsel for
R1.
3.The facts in issue, briefly put, are as follows. The parties had
entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOU) dated 31.03.2007 for
the purchase of lands in and around Sriperumbudur. A sum of Rs.100
crores had been advanced by the respondent.
4.For various reasons, the transactions did not fructify and hence a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
claim had been made by the respondent invoking the arbitration clause in
the MOU. Pending arbitration, the parties entered into a memorandum of
compromise (MOC) dated 19.12.2011 agreeing that the amount of
Rs.100 crores shall be repaid in four installments of Rs.25 crores each,
for which purpose, proceedings for arbitration were kept open till
31.03.2012.
5.That MOC concluded with the following clause:
'V In the event of the above terms not being
complied with by payment as contemplated above, the
claimant will be entitled to recover Rs.110 (Rupees
hundred and ten crores only) from the respondent by
proceeding against the attached and the other properties
of the respondent, retaining the lands already conveyed.'
6.It has hence been the unambiguous agreement of the parties that
in the event of the terms of the MOC not being satisfied by the appellant,
then the respondent will be entitled to recover a sum of Rs.110 crores
from the appellant by proceeding against the properties of the appellant
presently under attachment. The MOC, duly signed by the claimant
(respondent in OSA) and its counsel as well as respondent (appellant in
OSA) and his counsel, including specifically the last clause, has been
produced before us.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.Importantly, the appellant before us has not, at any stage of the
proceedings disputed the execution of the MOU. The fact that the
appellant felt fully bound by the terms of the MOC is also evidenced by
the position that three applications for extension of time for complying
with the terms thereof were filed before the Arbitral Tribunal on
29.03.2012, 24.07.2012 and 09.08.2012. Counters were filed by the
respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal to each of the applications
objecting to the grant of extension of time as sought for.
8.We have perused the affidavits in the petitions filed before the
Tribunal seeking extension of time and we find the acceptance of the
MOC and the terms therein, reiterated time and again. Accommodation
had been sought citing only paucity of funds as well as the effort
required to identify a person/entity to fund the payment.
9.Ultimately and since the appellant did not comply with the
terms, an additional award was passed on 09.08.2012, effective on and
from 10.09.2012. There was no compliance of the terms of the MOC
even during that interim period.
10.It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the appellant filed
O.P.No.307 of 2013 challenging the additional award dated 09.08.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The O.P. ultimately came to be dismissed on 19.12.2019, learned Judge
finding no necessity to intervene in the award passed on the basis of the
Joint MOC dated 19.12.2011.
11.There is also a categoric finding that it was never the case of the
appellant that the consent for compromise had been obtained by fraud
and in such circumstances, the challenge to the award was not liable to
be sustained. It is as against the aforesaid order dated 19.12.2019 that the
present OSA has been filed.
12.The respondent has urged that the impugned order be sustained
as there is no justification for the appellant to drag the matter any further.
The appellant has not made even a part payment thus far, resulting in
untold hardship to the respondent.
13.Having heard both the learned counsel, and on a perusal of the
grounds filed before us, we find that even at the stage of OSA, the
attempt of the appellant is only to buy more time. No legal infirmity has
been pointed out in any of the proceedings leading to, or paving the way
for the present appeal. The submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant turn primarily on the difficulties faced by the appellant in
finding an appropriate investor to fund the investment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. We concur with the findings of the learned Judge in order
dated 19.12.2019 that no grounds have been made out for intervention in
the award either at the stage of appeal under Section 34, or more so, in
terms of Section 37 of the Act. Having not disputed the execution of the
MOC at any point of time, the parties cannot renege on the same.
15.The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent are well received and support our conclusion as above. In C
& C Constructions Ltd. v. IRCON International Ltd. (2025 INSC 138),
the Supreme Court reiterates the proposition, that the scope of
interference in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is extremely
limited, referring to the judgments in the cases of Larsen Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India and others
(2023 INSC 708) and Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Chenab
Bridge Project Undertaking [(2023) 9 SCC 85].
16.In the recent judgment in S.V.Samudram v. State of Karnataka
and another (2024 INSC 17), the Supreme Court has reiterated yet again
the settled proposition that the scope of intervention under Section 34,
and all the more under Section 37, is very narrow.
17.The above proposition is applicable on all fours in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
case for two reasons. Firstly, the award is based on the admitted terms of
an MOC executed between the parties and their counsel, and secondly,
no legal infirmity whatsoever has been pointed out in impugned order
dated 19.12.2019.
18.While dealing with similar circumstances as in the present
appeal, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Executive Engineer, I & PH
Division, Bilaspur v. Ramesh Khaneja (2024:HHC:16588), had
dismissed an appeal under Section 37 where the arbitral award was based
on a consent decree. In such circumstances, there could be no patent
illegality or conflict with the public policy of India, both of which are
conditions in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
19.In light of the detailed discussion as above, we are of the view
that there is no merit in this appeal and hence the same is dismissed. No
costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
04.02.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
C. KUMARAPPAN.,J
vs
and
CMP.Nos.28273 & 28272 of 2024
04.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
