SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 112

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
. – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. This application has been under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Original Side Rules, seeking to set aside the order of the Master, dated 6.12.2017 made in EPD.No.38028 of 2017 and to direct the Registry to number the execution petition in EPD.No.38028 of 2017 and transmit the decree/award, dated 25.4.2016 passed by the Sole Arbitrator to the District Court, Bellary, State of Karnataka.

2. EPD.No.38028 of 2017 had been filed by a decree holder pursuant to the final award passed under Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.

3. The decree holder, M/s.P & D Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor M.Poobalan and the judgement debtor, M/s.Tiffins Barytes Asbestors and Paints Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Sriram Vedham, were parties before the arbitration proceedings conducted by the Sole Arbitrator, K.Venkatraman, J., former Judge of the Madras High Court. The Arbitral Tribunal came to be constituted by orders passed by this Court in OP.No.541 of 2014, dated 19.9.2014.

4. The Arbitral Tribunal had issued notices to both parties and during the arbitral proceedings, both the parties had filed a Memo of Compromise, dated 24.4.2016.


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top