M/s. Visaka Industries Ltd., Rep.by its General manager Mr.Rajinikanth v. M/s Bhadreshwar Vidyut Private Limited
Arb O.P(COM.DIV.)/627/2022 · 2025-10-10
N Anand Venkatesh
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87391 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 87391 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
No.627 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
No.627 of 2025
M/s.Visaka Industries Limited Rep. by its General Manager Mr.Rajinikanth Regd. office at “Visaka Towers” 1-8-303/69/3 S.P.Road Secunderabad 500 003 .. Petitioner Vs. M/s.Bhadreshwar Vidyut Private Limited Formerly known as M/s.OPGS Power Gujarat Private Limited Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Mr.Ravi Gupta 6, Sardar Patel Road Guindy, Chennai 600 032 .. Respondent Petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to substitute the Arbitrator nominated by the claimant Thiru.N.R.Chandran, Senior Advocate, vide order dated 18.03.2019 in O.P.No.44 of 2019 with an other nominee of the claimant/petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sunitha For Respondent : Ms.Aparajitha Vishwanath O R D E R 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
No.627 of 2025
This application has been filed under Section 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to substitute the Arbitrator nominated by the claimant. 2. The petitioner and the respondent are governed by a power supply agreement. Disputes arose between them and they invoked arbitration clause. The petitioner/claimant filed O.P.No.44 of 2019 before this Court and pursuant to the same, an order was passed by this Court on 18.03.2019, appointing the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner/claimant and the Arbitrator nominated by the respondent and also a Presiding Arbitrator, who is a retired Judge of this Court. 3. The present application has been filed for substitution of the Arbitrator nominated by the claimant due to health reasons. 4. When the application came up for hearing during previous occasions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the respondent is undergoing CIRP process. Hence, the matter was adjourned to ascertain the subsequent developments. 5. In the considered view of this Court, the CIRP proceedings will 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
No.627 of 2025
have no bearing in ordering for substitution of an Arbitrator. Hence, this Court is inclined to appoint Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan.M, Senior Advocate, (Mobile No.98405 80040), residing at Old No.3, New No.5, Ramanathan Street, Mahalingapuram, Chennai 600 034, having office at 83A/20A, Luz Avenue, 5th Street, Mylapore, Chennai, as nominee and accordingly, he shall be substituted in the place of existing Arbitrator nominated on the side of the claimant/petitioner. This application is disposed of in the above terms.
10.10.2025 gya (1/2) Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.)
No.627 of 2025
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. gya Arb.O.P.(Com.Div.) No.627 of 2025 10.10.2025 (1/2) 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis