Madras High Court
C R Manjunathan vs M/S Shree Aboorvaas Pure Veg on 27 October, 2025
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
Arb O.P No. 75 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Arb O.P No. 75 of 2025
C R Manjunathan
S/o C.R.Ramalingam
D.No.733, Edayar Street
Coimbatore 641 001 Petitioner
Vs
1. M/s Shree Aboorvaas Pure Veg
Restaurant (P) Ltd rep by its
Director C.B.Murali
S/o Balasubramaniam
D.No 12, NRN Layout
Pappanaickenpalayam
Coimbatore South
Coimbatore 641 037
2. C.B.Murali
S/o Balasubramaniam
D.No 12, NRN Layout
Pappanaickenpalayam
Coimbatore South
Coimbatore 641 037
3. M.Bhuvaneswari
W/o C.B.Murali
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
Arb O.P No. 75 of 2025
Director of M/s Shree Aboorvaas
Pure Veg Restaurant (P) Ltd.,
D.No 12, NRN Layout,
Pappanaickenpalayam
Coimbatore South
Coimbatore 641 037 Respondents
PRAYER
To appoint an arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the
respondents.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Karuanantham
For Respondents: Mr.T.Saikrishnan
ORDER
This original petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator.
2. When the petition came up for hearing on 03.09.2025, this Court
passed the following order:-
“This arbitration original petition has been filed under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for
appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between
the petitioner and the respondents.
2. On hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and
also considering the materials available on record, it is seen
that the petitioner had initially filed a suit before the
Commercial Court, Coimbatore under COS No.55 of 2024
against the respondents seeking for recovery of rental
arrears. In this suit, the respondents filed I.A.No.2 of 2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
under Section 8(1) of the Act. This interlocutory application
came to be disposed of by an order dated 04.12.2024 and the
relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-
“5.The primary contention of the
respondent/plaintiff in this petition is that the rent
agreement is unregistered and cannot be referred to
Arbitration. This Court consider the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re. Interplay
between Arbitration Agreement under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court have held as follows:-
"224. The conclusions reached in this
judgment are summarized below:
a) Agreements which are not stamped or are
inadequately stamped are inadmissible in
evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp
Act. Such agreements are not rendered void
or void ab initio or unenforceable;
b) Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is
a curable defect;
c) An objection as to stamping does not fall
for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of
the Arbitration Act. The concerned court
must examine whether the arbitration
agreement prima facie exists;
d) Any objections in relation to the
stamping of the agreement fall within the
ambit of the Arbitral tribunal; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
e) The decision in NN Blobal 2 (supra) and
SMS Tea Estates (supra) are overruled.
Paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall
Ropes (supra) are overruled to that extent."
6. From the dictum laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
an objection related to stamping of agreement would not fall
for determination under the proceedings under Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and any objection
related to the stamping of the agreement would fall within
the ambit of Arbitral Tribunal. Hence, this Court is of
considered stand that the objection as to non registration of
rent agreement with Arbitral clause could not be looked into
in this proceedings.
7. Further this Court also considered the arbitration
agreement, the respondent has not disputed that the subject
matter of the suit is not arbitrable. Morefully, proceedings
under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act also would
not have any impediment in referring the dispute to
Arbitration. Hence, this Court of the considered stand that
the petition could be allowed. The petitioner has prayed for
to stay further proceedings in the suit. Since the petition is
considered to be allowed to refer the suit dispute for
arbitration, continuing the suit proceedings before the Court
by staying the suit as prayed by the petitioner in the
considered view of the court is not sustainable. Hence, for
the prayer sought for to stay the suit proceedings the petition
is dismissed.
8. In the result, the petition is partly allowed and parties are
directed to refer the dispute to Arbitration. For the prayer
seeking stay of suit proceedings the petition is dismissed. No
costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
3. Pursuant to the above order, the present petition has
been filed before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner is directed to take
notice thru' Court as well as privately to the respondents
returnable by 06.10.2025. Post on 06.10.2025.”
3. After notice was served on the respondents, the matter has been listed
for final hearing today.
4. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and the materials available on record.
5. In the light of the earlier order passed on 03.09.2025 and also
considering the fact that there is a valid agreement between the parties, as
contemplated under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which
contains an arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator and
refer the dispute to the sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr.K.Harishankar,
th
Advocate, having office at 'Capitale' 9 Floor, No.554/555, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 (Phone No.98410 76561) is appointed as the sole
Arbitrator in this case. The learned Arbitrator is requested to enter upon
reference qua the agreement dated 01.12.2019 containing the arbitration clause
and adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties by holding
the sittings in any venue to the convenience of all concerned and render an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
award. The fess of the learned Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the
Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC)(Administrative Cost and
Arbitrator's Fees) Rules, 2017. The learned Arbitrator, after issuing notice to
both the parties and upon hearing them, is requested to pass an award as
expeditiously as possible, since the agreement is of the year 2019.
6. This original petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall
be no order as to costs.
27-10-2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
To
1. Mr.K.Harishankar
'Capitale', 9th Floor
No.554/555, Anna Salai
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018
(Mobile No: 98410 76561)
2. The Director
Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation
Centre-cum-Ex-Officio Member
Madras High Court Arbitration Centre
Chennai 600 104
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
N.ANAND
VENKATESH J.
ss
27-10-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 01:37:59 pm )
