Madras High Court
M/S Industrial Laminates vs Principal Chief Materials Manager on 26 November, 2025
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
2025
DATED: 26-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 633 of 2022
M/s Industrial Laminates
(India) Pvt Ltd.,
Rep.by its Authorized Officer
No.25 Mohammadi Lakda Bazar No.1
Maulana Saukat Ali Road
Mumbai-400 008.
M/s.Industrial Laminates (India) Pvt.Ltd.,
Rep. By its Authorized Officer
No.25, Mohammadi Lakda Bazar No.1
Maulana Saukat Ali Road
Mumbai 400 008. ..Petitioner
Vs
Principal Chief Materials Manager
Southern Railways, Ayanavaram
Chennai-23. ..Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
2 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
2025
PRAYER
Petition filed Under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, r/w Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts, 2015 to set aside the Award
dated 26.04.2019 as the same is against the petitioner by the Hon’ble Arbitrators
in the disputes between the petitioner and directing the respondent to pay the
cost of this petition.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Ashok Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Nelson
Central Government Standing Counsel
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1966, challenging the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator
dated 26.4.2019.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for
the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
3 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
3.The maintainability of the present petition is in question and therefore
even before going into the merits of the case, this Court has to see if the present
petition as it stands is maintainable.
4.It is seen that the award was passed on 26.4.2019. Thereafter, the
petition under Section 34 of the Act was presented on 24.7.2019. The petition
was presented without paying the entire court fees. The petition was returned
back and it was represented on 25.8.2020 at which point of time, the deficit
court fee was paid.
5.In view of the above, the important question that arises for
consideration is as to whether the deficit court fee that was paid at the time of
representation on 25.8.2020 can be considered to be proper presentation of the
petitioner within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the
Act.
6.The above issue is no longer res integra and it is covered by the earlier
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
4 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
order passed by this Court in A.Nos.4872, 4874 of 2025 dated 23.10.2025. The
relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
29. All the above judgments make it clear that filing of a
petition with deficit Court fee cannot be construed as proper
presentation of the petition. If such presentation of the petition
has to be regularized, the deficit Court fee must be paid within
the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of A and C
Act. If the same is not done, the Court is divested of its power to
condone the delay in the light of mandate prescribed under
Section 34(3) of A and C Act. In other words, improper
presentation of the petition by paying deficit Court fee, does not
arrest the limitation period prescribed under sub-section (3) of
Section 3 of A and C Act, unless the deficit Court fee is paid
within the limitation period prescribed in that provision. If the
limitation period is crossed, an application filed thereafter to
condone the delay in paying the deficit Court fee cannot even
be entertained, since it goes beyond the power of the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
5 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
which is circumscribed under Section 34(3) of A and C Act.
7.In view of the above, it is seen that the deficit court fee has to be paid
within the condonable period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. Once
that period is crossed, the Court loses its jurisdiction to condone the period of
limitation. In view of the same, since the deficit court fee has been paid beyond
the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act, the present
petition itself is not maintainable and it ought not to have been entertained. In
other words, the present petition is non-est in the eye of law since the Court
loses it jurisdiction beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act.
In the result, this petition is dismissed. No costs.
26.11.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
6 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
KP
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
7 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
To
Principal Chief Materials Manager
Southern Railways, Ayanavaram
Chennai-23.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
8 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
kp
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No. 633 of 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
9 Arb O.P(COM.DIV.) No.633 of
26-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/12/2025 04:15:52 pm )
