JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the arbitral award in ACP (MR & PK) 1 of 2019 dated 15.07.2021 on the file of the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Inbavijayan, Advocate.)

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that without there being an arbitration agreement, the second respondent Arbitrator has exercised jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding allegedly entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent on 28.12.2017.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no arbitration clause under the aforementioned memorandum of understanding dated 28.12.2017 and despite the same, the second respondent has acted without authority as an Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes under the memorandum of understanding. This civil revision petition has been filed also aggrieved by the impugned arbitral award dated 15.07.2021 passed by the second respondent Arbitrator in favour of the first respondent against the petitioner directing him to pay the following:

(a) The amount of excess amount drawn by Respondent beyond his share (41.8%) = Rs.2,39,40,980/-;

(b) Interest calculation from 01.01.2013 to 30.09.2020 (2830 days) is Rs.4,45,49,860/-;

(c) The amount of Rs.54 Lakh borrowed amount to redeem the Respondent Chettiyapatti Village Agricultural Land from Axis Bank = Rs.54,00,000/-;

(d) Interest calculation from 01.11.2010 to 30.09.2020 (3622 days) is Rs.1,28,58,100/-;

(e) Interest calculation for the total claim amount of Rs.8,9,21,856/- from 01.10.2020 to 30.06.2021 at the rate of 12% (273 days) is Rs.77,85,960/-;

(f) No award on the additional prayed dated 05.03.2021 sought by the Claimant;

(g) Interest at the rate of 8% will be applicable post publishing the award till the award is subjected for realisation.

3. Heard Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel representing Mr. Abhinav Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.H. Arvindh Pandian, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. D. Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following documents which have been filed in the typed set of documents filed along with this civil revision petition namely:

(a) Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the Petitioner and the first respondent dated 28.12.2017;

(b) Consent letter dated 08.08.2019 issued by the second respondent giving his consent to act as an Arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of the memorandum of understanding;

(c) Letter dated 20.08.2019 sent by the petitioner's counsel to the second respondent denying the existence of any arbitration clause under the memorandum of understanding and requesting the second respondent to refrain from acting as an Arbitrator in respect of the alleged disputes under the memorandum of understanding;

(d) Email dated 05.02.2020 sent by the petitioner's counsel to the second respondent Arbitrator requesting him to pass orders in the application filed by the petitioner under section 16 of the arbitration and conciliation act questioning his authority to act as an Arbitrator;

(e) Order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the second respondent Arbitrator under section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under the said provision.

(f) Arbitral award dated 15.07.2021 passed by the second respondent in the alleged dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent under the memorandum of understanding dated 28.12.2017, wherein the petitioner was directed to pay the aforesaid sum mentioned in paragraph-2 supra.

5. After referring to the aforementioned documents, Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without the existence of any arbitration clause, the second respondent has acted as an Arbitrator and has conducted a Kangaroo Court and has brought down