IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

M/s.Shriram Finance Limited,

(Formerly known as Shriram Transport Finance Co Ltd.,)

Rep. by its Authorised representative,

Sri Towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase,

Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

branch office at Branch Office,

No.40/10/2, 2^nd Floor, Saraswathi Complex,

Mount Road, YMCA Corner,

Coonoor, The Nilgiris - 643 101. .... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Poornima S W/o.Shankar

2.Shankar

S/o.Jeyaraman

3.Sivakumar

S/o.Belli .... Respondents

Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) filed under Section 11(6)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to preside over the arbitration proceedings to be commenced with respect to the dispute that have arisen with respect to the Loan cum

Hypothecation Agreement dated 27.12.2017 between the parties.

For Petitioner : Ms.V.Pushpa

For Respondents : Mr.P.Suresh Babu [R1]

Mr.N.Surya Senthil [R2]

No appearance [R3]

*****

ORDER

This petition has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between petitioner and respondents in terms of the Term Loan Agreement dated 27.12.2017.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 10.09.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“The petitioner had already initiated the arbitration proceedings and an award also came to be passed by the sole Arbitrator on 18.12.2020. However, this award was set aside by the Commercial Court (District Judge cadre), Coimbatore in Arb.O.P.No.98 of 2023 on the ground that the Arbitrator was unilaterally appointed by the petitioner.

2. Pursuant to the above order, notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 25.11.2024 was issued by the petitioner to the respondents. Thereafter, the present application has been filed before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator to enter reference and decide the dispute that has arisen between the parties with respect to the loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 27.12.2017.

3. Notice to the respondents returnable by 13.10.2025.

Private notice is also permitted.

Post on 13.10.2025.”

3. After service of notice, the respondents entered appearance, filed counter and raised two preliminary objections. The first objection is that when the earlier award was set aside in Arb.O.P.No.98 of 2023 on 04.12.2023, no liberty was granted by the Court to re-agitate the issue and the said order has also become final. The second issue raised on the side of respondents is that the claim is clearly barred by limitation. Hence, the matter cannot be referred to the Sole Arbitrator.

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.

5. In the case in hand, the parties had entered into a Term Loan Agreement dated 27.12.2017. A letter of guarantee was also issued on 27.12.2017. Due to the alleged default in repayment of loan amount, the petitioner issued a trigger notice and initiated arbitration proceedings. An award came to be passed in A.P.No.199 of 2019 on 18.12.2020 and the same was put to challenge before the Commercial Court (District Judge Cadre), Coimbatore, in Arb.O.P.No.98 of 2023. The Commercial Court, Coimbatore, set aside the award primarily on the ground that the award is in violation of principles of natural justice since sufficient opportunity was not given to respondents before the award was passed.

6. The petitioner once again issued the trigger notice under Section

21 of the Act on 25.11.2024 and thereafter, approached this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator.

7. The first objection raised on the side of respondents is that when the order was passed setting aside the award, no liberty was granted to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot once again initiate arbitration proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Bombay High Cour