w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Flywheel Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd V/S Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. and Others.

    O.P. 229 of 2020 and A. No. 968 of 2020

    Decided On, 15 July 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: N. SATHISH KUMAR

    For Petitioner: Karthik Subramanian And For Respondents: V. Balasubramani



Judgment Text


1. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent company has fairly submitted that as the Court had pointed out various infirmities in the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator, they have no objection for appointing fresh arbitrator in this matter and has suggested a practising advocate Mr. Sampath to enter upon the reference.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection for going for fresh arbitrator, viz., Mr. M.S. Sampath.

3. In view of the fact that despite the interim Order passed by this Court, award has been hurriedly passed, without any appropriate proceedings and that itself clearly indicate that the award is a result of bias. In such view of the matter as the award has been passed during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the proceedings itself, the award is set aside. As agreed by both sides, Mr. M.S. Sampath, Advocate, residing at No. 33, Baskaran Street, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600024, Mobile No. 9841159996, is appointed as an arbitrator to enter upon the reference. The learned arbitrator shall disclose disclosure statement as mandated under law and conduct the proceedings after giving opportunity to both sides and complete the proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to fix the remuneration and the same shall be borne by the respondent and other incidental expenses, shall be borne by the parties equally. Same shall be included in the costs.

4. In the Original Petition, this Court directed that the cost to be borne only by the respondent.

5. It is the contention of the respondent that the cost to be borne by both the parties. Be that as it may.

6. This Court after considering various infirmities and manipulation of records on the part of the respondent, such Order came to be passed. Therefore, the order as to cost need not be recalle

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

d. At any event, if the applicant succeeds in the arbitration, the cost borne by them shall be included. 7. Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of and the connected application is closed.
O R