1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:29.03.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRP NPD(MD)No.401 of 2004 and CMP(MD)No.2431 of 2004 S.Dikkuruse :Petitioner/1st Respondent -Vs- 1.Lakshmi General Finance Ltd, rep.by its Assistant General Manager,(Legal) S.Srinivasan :Respondent/petitioner 2.Y.Savarimuthu :Respondent/2nd respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 22.11.2004 passed in EP.No.280 of 2002 by the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajakittu For R – 1 : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan For R – 2 : No appearance ORDER The order dated 22.11.2004 passed in EP.No.280 of 2002 by the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai is being challenged in the present civil revision petition. 2.The first respondent herein has obtained an executable arbitral award in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997, wherein the revision petitioner and second respondent have been shown as respondents. The arbitral award passed in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997 has been put into execution in E.P.No.280 of 2002. 3.The court below has allowed the same and thereby directed to arrest the respondents by 15.12.2004. Against the order passed by the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the first respondent as civil revision petitioner. 4.It is an admitted fact that the first respondent herein has filed Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997, wherein the present revision petitioner and the second respondent have been shown as respondents. The arbitrator by name Subbaraya Somasundaram, Retired District and Sessions Judge has passed the arbitral award in question on 16.10.1998 and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.280 of 2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The Court below has allowed the same and thereby passed the impugned order. The main contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner has filed Arbitration Original Petition No.115 of 1994 so as to appoint an independent arbitrator. Under the said circumstances, the arbitral award passed in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997 is illegal and the same cannot be put into execution. 6.The Court below has allowed Arbitration Original Petition No.115 of 1994. Against the order passed in Arbitration Original Petition No.115 of 1994, the respondent therein as revision petitioner has filed CRP.No.14 of 2004 on the file of this Court and this Court after making elaborate discussion has found that the petition itself filed in Arbitration Original Petition No.115 of 1994 is totally illegal and the same is not maintainable and ultimately dismissed the same. 7.As stated earlier, the first respondent herein has obtained an executable arbitral award in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997 and the same has been put into execution in EP.No.280 of 2002. Considering the fact that an executable arbitral award has been passed in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997 and the same has been put into execution in E.P.No.280 of 2002 and also considering that the application filed in Arbitration Original Petition No.115 of 1994 is totally illegal and also devoid of merits, it is needless to say that the arbitral award passed in Arbitration Case No.21 of 1997 can very well be executed and the order passed in E.P.No.280 of 2002 by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same cannot be interfered with. 8.In fine, this civil revision petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. The order dated 22.11.2004 passed in E.P.No.280 of 2002 by the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai is confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai. +1CC to Mrs.A.L.Gandhimathi, Advocate. SR.No.12499. Mj RP/06.05.2010/2P/3C. CRP NPD(MD)No.401 of 2004 29.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/