Madras High Court
Malar Energy And Infrastructure Pvt. ... vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd on 8 July, 2025
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
Malar Energy and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
Mr. R.R. Gopaljee,
57, First Floor, Pantheon Road, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
Rep. by its Chief Engineer (Civil-Main Plant),
Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project,
Kudankulam - 627 106. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a sole arbitrator and this original petition
would lie before the Commercial Division of this Court under Section 2(1)
(c) (x) and (xiii) and a Court fee of Rs.50/- is affixed as per Article 11
Schedule II of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
For Petitioner : Kaushik N. Sharma
For Respondent : V. Vijay Shankar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court.
2. There seems to be a dispute between the petitioner and the
respondent arising out of the work order dated 31-03-2017. Admittedly, the
said work order contains an arbitration clause. Earlier, the petitioner had
initiated arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. An arbitrator
was also appointed by the respondent. The arbitrator appointed by the
respondent had acted upon the reference and was adjudicating the dispute
between the parties and an objection was raised by the petitioner based on
the Judgment rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of
Perkins Eastman Architects Dpc vs Hscc (India) Limited that an
arbitrator cannot be unilaterally appointed by any of the parties to the
dispute. In view of the said objection, the Arbitrator recused himself from
the arbitration through his order dated 03-02-2020.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner claims that in view of the CIRP
proceedings pending against the petitioner before the NCLT, Chennai, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
could not take steps to appoint a fresh Arbitrator. According to the
petitioner, the CIRP proceedings pending against the petitioner was dropped
only on 24-11-2024. According to the petitioner, only thereafter, they were
in a position to file a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, seeking for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court.
According to the petitioner, there is no delay on their part to file this
petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
4. However, counter has been filed by the Respondent before this
Court, raising the following objections:
a. Pendency of CIRP proceedings cannot prevent the petitioner from
filing a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. According to the Respondent, since no coercive steps were taken
against the petitioner in Section 11 petition, the petitioner could have filed
this petition within the period of limitation. According to the Respondent,
this petition is barred by the law of limitation;
b) The other objection raised by the respondent is that the petitioner
was participating in the earlier arbitration and in fact, only on the
petitioner's request, an arbitrator was appointed by the respondent,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
therefore, they cannot file this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking for appointment of an arbitrator by this
Court.
5. The objections raised by the respondent cannot be decided in this
petition when there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the claim of
the petitioner is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. The petitioner
has also given reasons before this Court as to why this petition has been
filed at this belated stage. The petitioner has also claimed that only due to
the fact that CIRP proceedings were pending against the petitioner before
the NCLT, Chennai, they were unable to file this petition earlier. Since
sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner for not filing this
petition earlier, this Court leaves it open for the Arbitrator to decide with
regard to the objections raised by the respondent in this petition through
their counter.
6. While deciding an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, this Court will have to see only the prima facie
existence of the arbitration clause in the contract, which is the subject matter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
of dispute between the parties. Admittedly in the Work Order dated 13-03-
2017, there exists an arbitration clause and the same is also not disputed by
the respondent through their counter filed before this Court.
7. While that be so, and that too when the issues contended by the
respondent cannot be adjudicated in this petition under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court has to necessarily appoint
an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
However, it is made clear that the respondents are granted liberty to raise all
objections including the objections, which have been raised before this
Court through their counter either by filing an application under Section 16
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or through a counter filed in
the main arbitral claim made by the petitioner before the arbitrator.
8. Accordingly, this Arbitration Original Petition is allowed as prayed
for by issuing the following directions:
(a) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Former Chief Justice, High
Court of Meghalaya, who is having address at No.2A, 2nd Floor, River Dale
Apartments, 14/27, 2nd Avenue, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai, Tamil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
Nadu - 600 031 (Mobile No.98405 17862) is appointed as the sole
Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent
arising out of the work order dated 31-03-2017;
(b) The Arbitrator shall be paid his remuneration / fees in accordance
with the 4th schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or as per
the mutual consent of both the parties;
(c) Both the parties shall equally share the arbitrator's fees;
(d) The Arbitrator shall conduct the arbitration in accordance with the
provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and shall complete
the arbitration within the specified time as prescribed under the said Act.
08.07.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
Arb.O.P.(Com. Div.) No.194 of 2025
08.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/07/2025 04:50:23 pm )
