Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 31 July 2026
Case Overview
- Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by TI Clean Mobility Pvt Ltd seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising from a basic purchase agreement dated 5 July 2024 and related purchase orders.
- The dispute concerns defective EV chargers supplied by Senatla Innovative EV Components Pvt Ltd, leading to a debit note of Rs 7,08,98,892 dated 30 Oct 2025. After adjusting an invoice of Rs 2,00,83,628 payable to the respondent, the petitioner claims Rs 5,08,15,264 for replacement of the chargers.
- Applications (Arb.A. No.1444/2025 and 1445/2025) sought security of Rs 5,08,15,264 from the respondent and a prohibitory order restraining the garnishee, Prudential Sugar Corporation Ltd, from paying the amount, directing the garnishee to deposit the sum with the court.
- The respondent invoked the MSMED Act, Section 18, arguing that the dispute should be resolved under that Act, which contains a non‑obstante clause, and sought dismissal of the arbitration applications.
- The court examined the interplay between the MSMED Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, noting that the MSMED Act governs recovery of dues under Section 17 but does not pre‑empt arbitration for damages arising outside that scope.
Final Outcome
- The court held that an arbitrator can be appointed to resolve the dispute independently of the MSMED conciliation proceedings.
- Justice V. Sivagnanam (former judge of the Madras High Court) is appointed as sole arbitrator, with authority to fix his own fees.
- The interim injunction dated 11 November 2025 ordering the respondent to furnish security of Rs 5,08,15,264 and restraining the garnishee from payments is made absolute pending arbitration.
- The Arbitration Original Petition and the Arbitration Applications are ordered to proceed; no order as to costs was made.
Topics: Arbitration, MSMED Act, EV Component Dispute