[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Mr.P.Sivakumar vs Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited on 19 January, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.19 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div) No.19 of 2026
and Application No.173 of 2026
1. Mr.P.Sivakumar
S/o.Pandiyan
2. Shunmuga Devi S.
W/o.Sivakumar .... Petitioners
Vs.
Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited,
Represented by its Authorised
Signatory, No.27A, Developed
Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. .... Respondent
Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) and
34(2-A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the
impugned award dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Arbitral
Tribunal.
For Petitioners : Mr.Kishore Balasubrmanian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Arunachalam
*****
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity, ‘the Act’] to set aside the impugned
award passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 21.01.2025.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 01:33:26 pm )
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.19 of 2026
2. The respondent was represented through counsel and on consent,
the main petition itself was taken up for final hearing considering the
limited issue involved in the present petition.
3. The dispute between the parties arose out of a hypothecation-
cum-loan agreement dated 02.08.2018, whereby a certain amount was
sanctioned in favour of the petitioners, and the respondent initiated
arbitration proceedings on the ground that the loan amount disbursed was
not repaid. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause under
Article 22, a sole Arbitrator was appointed by the respondent. The
petitioners were set ex-parte, and the sole Arbitrator passed the impugned
award dated 21.01.2025.
3. The award is challenged mainly on the ground that the
respondent had unilaterally appointed an Arbitrator and the same is in
violation of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Perkins
Eastman Architects DPC v. HSCC (India) Ltd. [(2020) 20 SCC 760].
4. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either
side and the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 01:33:26 pm )
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.19 of 2026
5. In the considered view of this Court, it is not necessary for this
Court to enter into the merits of the case and the award passed by the sole
Arbitrator is liable to be interfered on the ground that the sole Arbitrator
was unilaterally appointed by the respondent and the same goes against
the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to supra.
6. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of
this Court that, as between the same parties, this Court has passed orders
in the petition filed by the respondent under Section 11 of the Act and
appointed a sole Arbitrator. Totally 3 agreements were entered into
between the parties, which covered 11 vehicles. Out of the three
agreements, this Court has appointed a sole Arbitrator for two of the
agreements. Hence, this Court is inclined to appoint the same sole
Arbitrator in this case also, so that the matter can be sent back to the sole
Arbitrator for fresh adjudication.
7. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned award dated
21.01.2025 passed by the sole Arbitrator is hereby set aside. On consent
given by either side, this Court appoints Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior
Advocate as a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties
afresh.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 01:33:26 pm )
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.19 of 2026
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
mp
8. In view of the above, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Advocate
(residing at No.24, Judge Jambulingam Road, Jagadambal Colony,
Durgapuram, Mylapore, Chennai), Mobile No.99400 45709, is appointed
as the sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator is requested to enter upon
reference qua the hypothecation-cum-loan agreement dated 02.08.2018,
adjudicate the arbitral dispute that were arising between the parties by
holding the sittings in any venue in Chennai to the convenience of all
concerned and render an award. Fees of the sole Arbitrator shall be in
accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC)
(Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules 2017.
In the result, this petition is allowed in the above terms. Connected
application is closed.
19.01.2026
mp
Arbitration Original Petition(Com.Div.) No.19 of 2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/01/2026 01:33:26 pm )
