The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA O.P.No.555 of 2019 and A.No.5216 of 2019 Arbitration award setasideIn the result, the OP is allowed and the impugned Award is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 20.12.2019 good super
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.12.2019
CORAM
The Honourable Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
O.P.No.555 of 2019
and
A.No.5216 of 2019
Mr. G.G. Srinivasan
M/s. Venkateswara Diagnostice Centre,
Medavakkam,
Represented by its Proprietrix,
Mrs. J. Bhuvanasankari
No.11/237, Bharathi 1st Street,
Medavakkam,
Chennai- 600 100.
…Petitioners
Vs.
Mr. K. Babu
Mrs. Meera Babu
Respondents
Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
praying to set aside the Award dated 16.05.2019 and allow the counter claim of the
petitioners.
1/36
[1/11, 11:30] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019
For petitioners : Ms. Tanya Kappor
Mr. Yashwanth Rajan
For Respondents : Mr. K. V. Babu, caveator counsel
O R D E R
The unsuccessful respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal has
challenged the award in the above OP.
The Main grounds of challenge by the petitioner is that the
Arbitral Tribunal has not comprehended the terms of the contract
entered into between the claimant and the respondent, as a result of
which the Arbitral award has dealt with issues totally out of the
purview of the Memorandum of Understanding which by itself is not
admissible as the same was not registered. It is necessary to narrate
the events culminating in the passing of the award which has led to the
challenging of the award. The parties are referred to as the claimants
and respondents respectively.
Claimant’s Case
3.1. The claimants had moved the arbitral proceedings and had
2/36
[1/11, 11:31] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019
This last contravention must be understood
with a caveat. An Arbitral Tribunal must decide
in accordance with the terms of the
contract,but if an arbitrator construes a term of
the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not
mean that the award can be set aside on this
ground. Construction of the terms of a contact
in such a way that it could be said to be
something that no fair-minded or reasonable
person could do.”
7.10. Therefore on a conspectus of the facts narrated
hereinabove and the dicta laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court it is
clearly evident that award suffers from a patent illegality since the
learned Arbitrator has not adverted to the terms of the Memorandum
of Understanding particularly the provisos to Clause 1.7 thereby
violating the provisions of Section 28(3) of the Act.
35/36
[1/11, 11:31] Sekarreporter 1: OP.No.555 of 2019
P .T.ASHA, J.
mrn
In the result, the OP is allowed and the impugned Award is set
aside. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
20.12.2019
Index:Yes / No
mrn
O.P.No.555 of 2019
and
A.No.5216 of 2019
36/36
