Madras High Court
M/S.Sri Mutharamman Travels And vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited on 10 September, 2025
Author: M. Sundar
Bench: M. Sundar
Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025
&
C.M.P.Nos.22580, 22581 & 22578 of 2025
1. M/s.Sri Mutharamman Travels and
Transport,
Represented by its Sole Proprietor
P.Sivakumar, No.54, GVT Complex,
Varatharajapuram, Nagathamman Nagar,
Poonamallee,
Chennai -600 123
2. Shunmuga Devi S .... Appellants
Vs
Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited,
No.27A, Developed Industrial ... Respondent
Estate, Guindy, Chennai -600 032.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
Arb Appeal No. 34 of 2025
Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 against the Impugned Order dated 07.01.2025 passed by
the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by Indian Centre for Industrial
Commercial Arbitration at Chennai, comprising of a Sole Arbitrator in
I.A. No.662 of 2024 in A.C.P. No.426 of 2024.
For Appellant(s): Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar
for Mr.B.Kishore
of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm)
For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Arunachalam
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.Sundar J.)
Mr.Raghavendra Ross Divakar, learned counsel representing
Mr.B.Kishore of M/s.Dua Associates (Law Firm) for appellant and
Mr.M.Arunachalam, learned counsel for the sole respondent agreed to
have the main appeal heard out owing to the trajectory the matter has
taken.
2. Post order under Section 17 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of
convenience and clarity] i.e., order dated 05.01.2025 made by 'Arbitral
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
Tribunal' ('AT' for the sake of brevity), the respondents before AT (who
are appellants before us) moved the Arbitration Court under Section 14 of
A and C Act, more particularly Section 14(2) of A and C Act seeking
termination of the mandate of the AT primarily predicating their
argument on Perkins principle i.e., principle laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Architect DPC and Anr. vs. HSCC
(India) Ltd. reported in (2020) 20 SCC 760. To be noted, Perkins
principle simply stated is one that forbids unilateral appointment. Hon'ble
single Judge of this Court accepted the argument, applied Perkins
principle and terminated the mandate in and by an order dated
05.08.2025.
3. On instructions, Mr.M.Arunachalam submitted that the sole
respondent accepts the Section 14 (2) order of the Arbitration Court and
on that basis has filed a petition under Section 11 of A and C act vide
TNCT0455I2538S741 and a scanned reproduction of the e-Court fee
receipt in this regard as placed before us by learned counsel is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
4. As mandate of the AT which made the impugned order dated
07.01.2025 has since been terminated, this Court has no difficulty in
writing that the impugned order also will now have to be effaced without
expressing any view one way or the other on the merits of the impugned
order. On the same basis, we make it clear that pending Section 11
petition and pending constitution of AT, it is open to both sides, be it
appellants or the respondent before us, to move the Section 9 Court for
suitable orders as Section 9 petition can be filed even before
commencement of arbitral proceedings. If this course is adopted, Section
9 Court will consider the application on its own merits and in accordance
with law untrammeled by instant order of this Division Bench. All
questions are left open for this purpose.
5. Learned counsel for appellants submits that pursuant to the order
of AT, the vehicles have been repossessed and the appellants are under
imminent threat of the same being put to sale by the respondents. We
make it clear that we are not expressing any view or opinion either on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
repossession or the threat of sale as that will be left to be decided either
by the Section 9 Court or by the AT in a Section 17 legal drill.
6. In the event of the same prayer being made by way of Section 17
application before AT to be constituted vide Section 11 proceedings, it
will be equally open to AT to consider the matter on its own merits and in
accordance with law dehors the instant judicial order.
7. As the impugned order stands effaced, in the light of the
trajectory the matter has taken, we deem it appropriate to write that
captioned appeal is disposed of as closed with preservation of rights of
both sides in the manner alluded to supra albeit with observations made
supra. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petitions are
closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.S.K.,J.)
gpa 10.09.2025
M.SUNDAR J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
AND
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR J.
gpa
10.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/09/2025 03:30:38 pm )
