Advocates:
['M/S V B PERUMAL RAJ', '', 'A DURAI ESWAR', 'M/S T K BHASKAR', '', 'SRINATH SRIDEVAN', 'K HARISHANKAR']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

O.P. No.543 of 2017

In the matter of Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996

AND

In the matter of M/s. SICGIL India Ltd.

Vs.

Madras Fertilizers Ltd. In Award dt

30.01.2017.

M/s. Madras Fertilizers Ltd.,

Manali,

Chennai – 600 068.

... Petitioner

-Versus-

M/s. SICGIL India Ltd.,

Dhan Building,

#827, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

... Respondent

O.P. No.543 of 2017

Original Petition praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set

aside the unregistered stamped Award dt 30.01.2017 passed by Justice Mr.

K.P. Sivasubraminam in the Arbitration matter of M/s. SICGIL India Ltd.

Vs Madras Fertilizers Ltd. In so far as awarding damages together with

post award interest against the Petitioner and to allow the counter claim in

its entirety as claimed by the petitioner/MFL.

This Original Petition coming on this day before this court for

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2

hearing through video conferencing in the presence of Mr.V. Ayyadurai,

Senior Counsel for Mr.V.B. Perumal Raj, Advocates for the petitioner

herein and Mr.T.K.Bhaskar, advocate for the respondent herein and upon

reading the petition and the award dated 30.01.2017 and the counter

statement filed by the 1^st respondent herein and this court having observed

that even there is some delay, it cannot be ground to interfere a well-

reasoned award, the learned Arbitrator had factually arrived a conclusion

and interpreted the contract, and taking note of the nature of contract

entered between the parties and the practice going on right from the year

1972 interpreted contract, in such view of the matter, this court is of the

view that mere delay itself cannot be taken advantage by the petitioner to

non-suit the well-reasoned award, it is to be noted that the delay is not only

happened before this Court, earlier, Mr. Justice Ratnam (Retd.) appointed as

Arbitrator was substituted by the present Arbitrator for the failure of

petitioner to pay fees, therefore, when the petitioner itself caused some

delay in the entire arbitral proceedings, they cannot blame the Arbitrator for

releasing the award with some delay, on perusal of entire award, which

consists of more than 123 paragraphs, this court satisfied that the challenge

made under Sec.34 of the Act is nothing, but futile exercise on the part of

the petitioner, though several judgments have been placed to contend that

the delay defeats justice, those judgements cannot be applied to the facts of

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3

the present case, the above judgements have been rendered in different

context, where several years have been taken to pass the final order, which

in fact, defeated the right of the parties to approch any higher court in time,

in such view of the matter, those judgements no way helpful to the present

petiioner herein, on perusal of entire grounds raised under sec.34 of the Act

and also submission, this Court is not satisfied that none of the grounds to

interfere with the award is made with regard to the allegation that claimant

has not taken any steps to mitigate the damages, such plea was never raised

either in the statement nor in the grounds challenging the award, in such

view of the matter, such plea cannot be raised during submissions, therefore

this court does not find any merit in the Original Petition and, it is ordered

as follows:-

That the O.P.No. 543 of 2017, be and is hereby dismissed

WITNESS, THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE,

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AFORESAID, THIS THE

09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (O.S.II)

//Certified to be true copy//

Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.

COURT