CMA/641/2018 of COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs MAKKANLAL RAJKUMAR

C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.04.2026 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 Cotton Corporation of India Ltd., A Government Company having its Branch Office at 1057 Trichy Road, Ramanathapuram at Coimbatore – 641045. ... Appellant Vs. 1. M/s.Makkanlal Rajkumar, a Proprietary concern, Rep. by his Power-agent, Kantiprasad Patodia, and having its place of business at 87, Maker Chambers III, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. 2. M/s.Uma Maheswari Mills Ltd., 329, State Bank Colony No.2, Salem. ... Respondents Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to set aside the fair and decreetal order in Arbitration O.P.No.232 of 2006 dated 28.06.2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. 1 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 For Appellants : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan For Respondents : Mr.N.P.Vijakumar for R1 Mrs.B.Ambili, Deputy Official Liquidator for R2 ****** JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in Arbitration Original Petition No.232 of 2006 dated 28.06.2017 2 According to the appellant, there was a contract between the appe llant and the respondents with regard to purchase of cotton from the appellant. The appellant filed claim petition before the learned Arbitrator stating that the r espondents failed to lift the cotton as per the terms of the agreement and hence they incurred loss. The learned Arbitrator, after hearing both the parties and after perusing the documents filed by the appellant/claimant, allowed the claim of the appellant by an Aw ard dated 30.06.2001 and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,84,345.84/-, against which the first respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and C onciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’). The learned Principal District Judge, Coim batore, vide order dated 28.06.2017 allowed the same by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, against which, the appellant is before this Court with the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 3 According to learned counsel for the appellant, as against the Award of the learned Arbitrator, the first respondent filed the petition under S ection 34 of the Act and when they disputed the Award, they have to file documents to support their claim, whereas, the Section 34 Court directed the appellant to produce the doc uments and on failure to produce the said documents by either of the parties, allow ed the petition by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, which is patent illegality and opposed to public policy and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 4 Learned Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first res pondent is only acted as an Agent and the second respondent is the original pur chaser. Therefore the first respondent is not liable to pay any amount as awarded by the learned Arbitrator. 5 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent and perused the materials available on record. 6 It is seen that aggrieved against the Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, the first respondent filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act, seeking directions to the third respondent therein, who is the Arbitrator, to produce all the 3 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 records relating to the Arbitration proceedings and to set aside t he Award. Section 34 Court instructed both the parties to produce all the documents relati ng to the Arbitration proceedings and despite giving sufficient time, neither of the parties produced the documents as sought for by the Section 34 Court. Therefore the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, as no other option, constrained to allow the petition vide order dated 28.06.2017 by setting aside the Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator. Hence it is clear that the learned Principal District Judge has not allowed the petition under Section 34 of the Act on merits. 7 This Court, vide order dated 18.03.2026 directed the appellant to produce all the documents relating to the arbitration proceedings. In respons e, the appellant produced some of the documents and hence again the appellant was directe d to produce all the documents available with them. Thereafter the appellant filed remaining documents relating to the arbitration proceedings available with them. 8 Therefore we are of the considered view that the matter may re mitted back to the Section 34 Court for fresh consideration with the documents f iled now by the appellant. 4 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 9 Accordingly, the order dated 28.06.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbat ore, with a direction to consider and dispose of the petition under Section 34 of the Act afresh filed by the first respondent herein with the documents now filed by the appellant before this Court, keeping in mind the provisions of Section 34 of the Act, in accordance with law. 10 The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand disposed of with the above directions. No costs. [PVJ] [KGTJ] 08.04.2026 Neutral Citation : Yes/No cgi Note: Registry is directed to send back the original records, if any re ceived, along with the documents now filed by the appellants vide typed set dated 24.03.2026 and 07.04.2026 To The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore. 5 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 P.VELMURUGAN. J. and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. cgi C.M.A.No.641 of 2018 08.04.2026 6 / 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis