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

2020 Supreme(Mad) 218

M.SUNDAR
Muthu – Appellant
Versus
Indusind Bank Limited, Represented by its Power of Attorney R. S. Bharath – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Sairaman, Advocate. For the Respondent:T. Karthikeyan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the award dated 20.04.2015 passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.ACP.No.IND/SP/988 of 2014.)

1. Instant 'Original Petition' (hereinafter 'OP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed assailing an arbitral award dated 20.04.2015 made by a sole Arbitrator (third respondent), who constituted the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. A loan agreement dated 11.10.2012 is the fulcrum of the instant arbitral proceedings. There is no disputation or disagreement that Clause 23 of this loan agreement is an arbitration clause and therefore, the same serves as an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) read with Section 7 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' (hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity).

3. Considering the limited contours and confines of a petition under Section 34 of A and C Act, short facts shorn of elaboration will suffice. In other words, suffice to say that the petitioner availed loan for purchase of a truck from the first respondent company and committed default. Arbitration clause was invoked and ar

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