Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Brandavan Food Products – Appellant
Versus
Southern Railway, through its General Manager – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute arises from compliance with interim orders. (Para 9) |
| 2. dispute referred to sole arbitrator following parties' consent. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 3. interim orders continue pending arbitration outcome. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
When these applications came up for hearing on 20.08.2025, the following order came to be passed by this Court:
“These applications have been filed seeking for the following reliefs :
(a) seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondent from taking any adverse action against the applicant pursuant to the notice dated 30.05.2025 issued by the respondent;
(b) seeking for an order of interim injunction to restrain the respondent from taking any steps which would be prejudicial to the rights and interest of the applicant flowing from the Standard Bid Document of Tender No.SR/YSA/02/2024 for provision of Yatri Seva Anubanth (YSA) services for 6 pairs of Vande Bharat Trains of the Southern Railway pursuant to the letter of acceptance dated 15.04.2024 issued by the respondent in faovur of the applicant;
(c) seeking for an order of interim stay of operation of the impugned notice dated 30.05.2025 bearing No.SRHQ0COMM/32/202
The court upheld that ongoing arbitration processes require interim protections for a contractor against adverse actions by the railway, emphasizing the importance of contractual compliance and exist....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a sole arbitrator based on the arbitration clause in the contract and the respondent's failure to send a panel of ....
Court upheld the Arbitral Tribunal's decision based on the principle that interference is limited to cases of perversity, with findings deemed a plausible view of the evidence.
Disputes arising from a construction contract are arbitrable, and failure to follow conciliation procedures does not bar the appointment of an arbitrator.
The court upheld the arbitral award allowing refund of liquidated damages due to the interpretation of contract clauses, confirming limited grounds for interference under arbitration law.
The limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act of 1996 and the requirement for an arbitral award to be suffering from patent illegality for it to be set aside.
An Arbitral Tribunal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot grant interim orders that effectively render final decisions on substantive claims, as this exceeds its jurisdiction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide scope of powers of the court to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the strict compl....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
