IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH O.S.A.NO.46 OF 2004 AND C.M.P.NO.3069 OF 2004 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Chief Engineer, (Material & Management), No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. .. Appellant Vs. 1.M/s.Revathee Enterprises, rep. by its Partner Arunachalam, No.1,Munirathnam Street, Ayyaavoo Naidu Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029. 2.K.Skandan, Chairman, Regional Industry Facilitation Council, Chennai Region, No.47,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 .. Respondents This O.S.A. has been preferred under Order 36 Rule 1 of O.S. Rules against the order dated 24.12.2003 made in O.P.No.796 of 2003. For Appellant : Mr.N.C.Ramesh For Respondents: No appearance - - - - JUDGMENT
(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this court made in O.P.No.796 of 2003, whereby an award passed against the appellant herein was challenged. At the time of admission, the learned Single Judge has passed an order, which reads thus:
“Notice on condition the petitioner deposits one third of the principal amount within eight weeks from today.”
2.The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on the side of the respondents. The original petition, whereby the award passed by the second respondent was sought to be set aside and the order under challenge are perused.
3.As could be seen, an award passed by the second respondent herein in favour of the first respondent is the subject matter of challenge. The award came to be passed when the matter was placed before the second respondent Arbitrator as to the dispute that arose between the appellant/petitioner and the first respondent pursuant to an award of tender for the supply of materials and a claim was made by the first respondent. The Court need not go into the grounds under which the award is challenged, since it is the subject matter before the original petition. The only ground, on which the order of the learned Single Judge is assailed is that when the O.P. came up for admission, an order was passed issuing notice to the opposite party on condition of the petitioner deposits one third of the principal amount within eight weeks therefrom.
4.The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this court reported in 2004 (4) CTC 1 (THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HIGHWAYS AND RURAL WORKS) VS. D.G. DEIVASIGAMANI AND ANOTHER) and would submit that it is a fit case where the original petition has got to be admitted. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the decision rendered by the Bench of this Court, following the decision of the Apex Court referred to therein, has got full application without making any deviation whatsoever. It is a case where the award was sought to be set aside by filing the petition and instead of admitting the application where the challenge is made, the learned Single Judge has imposed condition of making deposit of one third of the principal amount. The Apex Court has held that such discretion is not vested with the Court at the time of admission. Under these circumstances, the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge has got to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is closed.
(M.C., J.) (R.P.S., J.)
14.07.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
vvk
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
AND
R.SUBBIAH, J.
vvk
O.S.A.NO.46 OF 2004
14.07.2008