Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14408

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Anand Venkatesh, J
P.Vijaya Janarthanan – Appellant
Versus
Sri Devi Karumari Amman Thirai Arangam, represented by its Partners (i) R.Sudhakar (ii) Radhika (iii) K.Vaijiravelu (iv) K.Vengappa (v) K.Kumaravelu – Respondent
Arbitration Application No.6 of 2026 | Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div) No.16 of 2026

Advocates:
For Petitioners: Mr.C.Jagadish
For Respondents: Mr.P.Nagaraju

The court upheld the arbitration agreement and appointed a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Headnote:{ "statute_analysis": "The Arbitration Application and Original Petition were filed under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 respectively; the relevant lease deed dated 31.08.2022 is central to the dispute.", "facts_of_case": "The petitioners claimed Rs.5,12,00,000/- from the respondents due to a dispute arising from the lease agreement, which included a trigger notice for arbitration sent on 06.08.2025,", "findings_of_court": "The court found consent for arbitration and thus appointed a sole arbitrator as agreed by the parties.", "issues": "The key issues included whether the respondents should be directed to provide security and the appointment of an arbitrator.", "ratio_decidendi": "The court emphasized the need for upholding the arbitration agreement as per Section 7 of the Act, leading to the appointment of the sole arbitrator.", "result": "Accordingly, this petition and application are disposed of." }

Table of Content
1. petition for security and arbitration appointment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. dispute and claim for compensation. (Para 3 , 4)
3. counsel's arguments and denial of claims. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. court's agreement for arbitration and appointment of arbitrator. (Para 8 , 9)
5. final order disposing the petition. (Para 10)

COMMON ORDER

Arbitration Application No.6 of 2026 has been filed under Section

9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [for brevity 'the Act'] to direct the respondents to furnish security for the claim amount together with interest and on failure to attach the property owned by the respondents more fully described in the Judge’s summons pending adjudication of the disputes by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div) No.16 of 2026 has been filed under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the petitioners and the respondents arising out of the lease deed dated 31.08.2022.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents approached the petitioners and requested to take on lease the subject theatre premises. A lease agreement dated 31.08.2022 was entered into between the parties.

4. Dispute arose between the parties and the petitioners are claiming a sum of Rs.5,12,00,000/- from the respondents along with interest. The trigger notice was also issued under Section 21 of the Act on 06.08.2025 for appointment of sole arbitrator. On receipt of the same, a reply was given by respondents on 20.08.2025 denying the claim made by the petitioners. It is under these circumstances, the present application and petition have been filed.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

6. Learned counsel for respondents denied the claim made by petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondents must be directed not to lease the property to any third party since it will adversely affect the interest of the petitioners.

8. In the considered view of this Court, learned counsel appearing on either side consented for appointment of a sole arbitrator to refer the dispute. In view of the same, the application filed under Section 9 of the Act can be placed before the sole arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act and the same can be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to both parties.

9. There is a valid agreement between the parties in line with Section 7 of the Act and it contains an arbitration clause. Therefore, this Court is inclined to appoint a sole arbitrator.

10. In view of the above, this Court appoints Mr. Justice N.Authinathan, Former Judge, High Court of Madras, Flat No.37, A- Block, Lakshmi Nivas (Opp. To Rajarathinam Stadium), Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, E-mail: j usticeauthinathan@gmail.com [Mobile No.94455 08822] as the sole Arbitrator and the Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator is requested to adjudicate the arbitral disputes that had arisen between the parties and render arbitral award by holding sittings in the 'Madras High Court Arbitration Centre under the aegis of this Court' (MHCAC) as per Madras High Court Arbitration Proceedings Rules 2017 and fee of Hon’ble Sole Arbitrator shall be in accordance with the Madras High Court Arbitration Centre (MHCAC) (Administrative Cost and Arbitrator's Fees) Rules 2017.

Accordingly, this petition and application are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document