M/S Shriram Finance Ltd v. Senthil Kumar

ORDER Despite service of notice on the respondents, the respondents neither entered appearance through counsel nor in person.

¶2Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the materials on record.

¶3The petitioner is a successful award holder in the arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in A.P.No.1 of 2019 before the Commercial Court at Coimbatore. Subsequently, he filed an execution petition in E.P.No.111 of 2024 to execute the arbitration award and the same was dismissed by the executing court only on the ground that the appointment of Arbitrator was not in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the executing court was clearly in error in going into the aspect of unilateral appointment of Arbitrator or otherwise, when the award had not been set aside or recalled under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He would therefore state that the only avenue to challenge the award was under Section 34 and in the present case, the respondent had in fact challenged the award by Page2 of 6 filing OP under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which also came to be dismissed by the District Court, Coimbatore in A.O.P.No.113 of 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner furter states that despite the above facts having been brought to the notice of the executing court, the executing court had proceeded to dismiss the execution petition on the ground of unilateral appointment of arbitrator, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perkins Eastman Archietecs DPC Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd. reported in AiR 2020 SC 59.

¶4The executing court cannot go behind the award, especially, when the award was challenged in a manner known to law under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, unsuccessfully. The executing court could not have put unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator, even assuming there has been such unilateral appointment in the instant case against the decree holder, in execution proceedings. The proper forum to have set aside such unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator was only by way of filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the present case, as already discussed herein above, the said attempt by the respondent/judgment debtor was also unsuccessful. The executing court was therefore clearly in error in dismissing the execution petition. Page3 of 6

¶5The Honble Supreme Court in Bhawarlal Bhandari Vs. Universal heavy mechanical Lifting Enterprises, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 558, described the role of the executing court in executing a award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In fact, reliance is placed on the order of this court in M/s Sundaram Finance limited Vs. S.M.Thangaraj, reported in

(2025) 3 CTC 73 as well as the order passed by me n M/s Shriram Finance Ltd. Vs. Prabu and another in CRP No.3760 of 2025 dated 09.02.2026, where, a Section 47 application was filed and allowed by the executing court on the ground that the Award was passed subsequent to the unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶6In the facts of the present case, the respondents have admittedly challenged the unilateral appointment of Arbitrator under Section 34 and had lost. Therefore, the executing court should have proceeded with the E.P. and ensured that the award is executed, instead of proceeding to dismiss the execution petition on the ground of unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶7For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to set aside the order of the executing court, dismissing the E.P.No.111 of 2024 on the file of Commercial Court, Coimbatore. Page4 of 6

¶8Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order passed in E.P.No.111 of 2024 is set aside. The District Judge, Commercial Court, Coimbatore shall proceed with E.P.No.111 of 2024 and dispose of the same, within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 06-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MST To The District Judge, Commercial Court, Coimbatore. Page5 of 6

P.B.BALAJI, J. MST 06-08-2026 Page6 of 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP No. 3919 of 2026 and CMP No.17139 of 2026 M/s Shriram Finance Ltd Rep.by its Power Agent Mr.P.Senthil Kumar, Administrative office at Sri towers, Plot No.14A, South Phase,Industrial Estate, Gundy, Chennai-600 032. Having their Branch Office, at No.1770, Artsan Tower, 2nd Floor, Trichy Road, Near Ramanathapuram Signal, Coimbatore- 641045. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Senthil Kumar D.No.107-A Senguptha Street, Ramngar, Coimbatore- 641 009. 2. Mr.Arumugasamy, D.No.107-A Senguptha Street, Ramngar, Coimbatore- 641 009. 3. Mr.Palanisamy, D.No.107-A Senguptha Street, Ramngar, Landmark- Hotel Vijay Park in Anupparpalaym, Coimbatore- 641 009. ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2025 in E.P.No.111 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Cader), Coimbatore, and consequently direct the executing court to proceed with the execution of the arbitral award in accordance with law. Page1 of 6 For Petitioner(s): Ms. V. Pushpa For Respondent(s): No appearance for the respondents.