ORDER: This application is filed by the applicant/ plaintiff in C.S. No.190 of 2002 to dismiss the suit and direct the parties to continue with the pending Arbitration proceedings before the sole Arbitrator Thiru S.Santhanakrishnan, Retired District Judge.

2. The case in brief is as follows: The present application is filed under Sec.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to dismiss the suit and refer the matter to arbitration before the sole Arbitrator already appointed. There is a valid arbitration clause under the Loan Agreements dated 22.3.1999, 26.5.1999, 7.6.1999 and 17.5.2000 and the parties to the agreements are bound by the same. Sec.8 of the Act very clearly stipulates that if a party before a Judicial Authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration applies to the Court to refer the parties to arbitration the Court shall do so. Further, Sec.5 of the Act deals with the extent of judicial intervention and the section stipulates that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, no judicial authority shall intervene. The language of Sec.8 is peremptory. The first respondent firm approached the applicant company for certain loans required for the expansion of their business and the particulars of the loan are furnished. The first respondent also entered into 4 loan agreements referred to above and also executed demand promissory notes. The 2nd respondent as Managing Partner has executed the demand promissory notes. Clause 17 of the respective loan agreements indicates that all disputes and/or differences between the borrower and lender shall be settled by the Arbitrator. The arbitration clause was invoked as early as 13.11.2000 and till today the respondents have not filed their counter. They are filing one application after another before the Arbitrator with a view to protract and delay the proceedings. All the issues raised in the present suit have already been raised before the Arbitrator and orders have already been passed. Now, the very same issues formed the subject matter of suit. The sole aim of the respondents is to prevent the applicant company from proceeding with the arbitration proceedings. The respondents having availed benefit under the 4 loan agreements, cannot turn around and dispute the validity of the same. The respondents raised a plea, namely, the loan agreements were foisted by the applicant company by fraud, misrepresentation, coercion and undue influence; the 3rd respondent retired from the partnership and the loan agreement dated 17.5.2002 is not valid; the respondents apprehend bias and partiality on the part of the sole Arbitrator and they have raised the issue of venue of arbitration in the plaint. The execution of the loan agreements as well as the passing of consideration have been admitted. The respondents are educated, hard core business people, who are well aware of the terms and conditions. There is a valid arbitration clause under the loan agreements and the respondents are bound by it. The partners are jointly and severally liable for the acts of the partnership firm. Hence, the application.

3. The respondents filed a counter- affidavit and denied the various averments. The application filed by the applicant company under Sec.8 of the Act is devoid of any merit and has to be dismissed. There is no binding arbitration agreement and it has been specifically contracted that the parties can file suits or commence any other proceedings in respect of all matters concerning the loan agreement before the Courts in the City of Chennai. The respondents will not get justice from the Arbitrator appointed by the applicant. The respondents has questioned the very commencement of arbitration proceedings. The sole Arbitrator unilaterally sought to go ahead with the proceedings without consulting with the respondents. The other allegations in the counter relate to merits of the matter and, as such, it is unnecessar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document