Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Sudarsanan – Appellant
Versus
Sekaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. loan agreement disputes require arbitration as per the contract clause. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court affirms the necessity of appointing an arbitrator to resolve acknowledged disputes. (Para 4) |
| 3. final appointment of an arbitrator to oversee proceedings. (Para 5) |
ORDER
The respondent had availed of a loan from the petitioner under loan agreement dated 01.02.2022. Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 28.01.2023 was executed in relation thereto. Said MoU contains the following dispute resolution clause:
“8) The PARTIES hitherto shall refer the disputes arising out of this Memorandum of Understanding, including non- adherence to the payment schedule agreed by the Debtor to a SOLE ARBITRATOR to be appointed by the PARTIES in consensus. The Place of Arbitration Shall be at Chennai, language of the Arbitration shall be English. The Award passed by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Parties, the cost of Arbitration being shared equally.”
2. After invoking the arbitration clause under notice dated 08.01.2025 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has applied for the appointment of arbitrator by this Court.
3.The respondent
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
