Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1962 (MAD)

United Plantation Limited v. K. Vasu

2014-07-04

S.RAJESWARAN, S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.4.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Uthagamandalam in A.O.P.No.6 of 2014. 2. We have heard Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also gone through the affidavit and other records made available before us. 3. In the course of arguments, both the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there is an issue between the parties and the same could be referred to an Arbitrator, so that they could resolve the dispute before the Arbitrator. They have also given the name of the Arbitrator to this Court. A memo dated 4.7.2014 has been filed on behalf of the appellant and the same has been produced before this Court, which has also been accepted in principle by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has got objections on certain statements made in the memo, we are inclined to pass the following order, ignoring those statements which are objectionable to the other side:- (i) The issue involved in this appeal is with regard to cutting of trees by the respondent in the land belonging to the appellant. Therefore, this issue will have to be referred to an Arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both the parties have agreed that a former retired Judge of this Court viz., The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam (Retired), could be nominated as an Arbitrator. Accordingly, Mr. Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam, Judge (Retired) of the Madras High Court, is hereby appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Hence, both the parties are directed to go before the Arbitrator, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The remuneration, the arbitration venue and modalities are all to be fixed by the learned Arbitrator himself. (iii) With regard to the removal of trees by the respondent herein is concerned, it is agreed and accepted by both the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side that the trees already felled, which are lying in the subject land, could be removed by the respondent, after duly identifying them. (iii) With regard to the removal of trees by the respondent herein is concerned, it is agreed and accepted by both the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side that the trees already felled, which are lying in the subject land, could be removed by the respondent, after duly identifying them. As agreed to by the parties, we appoint Mr.B.N.Suchindran, Advocate, 226, New Additional Law Chambers, Madras High Court-600 104 (Cell No.99401 83356) as an Advocate Commissioner to be present at the time of removal of trees, to identify the felled trees. Representatives from the side of the appellant and the respondent should be present at the time of inspection by the Advocate Commissioner and they should render full and effective assistance to the Advocate Commissioner, in terms of locating the area in which the trees have been cut and the kind of trees to be cut and removed, as per the agreement entered into between the parties. (iv) Advocate Commissioner should ensure that the trees are cut and removed with due prior permission of the competent authorities. (v) No fresh trees shall be allowed to be cut and the trees which had been already felled alone should be permitted to be removed by the respondent, by the Advocate Commissioner. The rest of the dispute with regard to the further area to be covered and further trees to be cut, the alleged breach committed by both the parties, all could be raised before the learned Arbitrator and decided. (vi) The Advocate Commissioner is directed to submit a detailed report in respect of the above, before the learned Arbitrator, even before the learned Arbitrator could commence his proceedings. (vii) The Advocate Commissioner shall be paid an initial remuneration of a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), apart from his other expenses, by the appellant. For additional remuneration, the Advocate Commissioner shall make his claim along with the report, that would be submitted by him before the learned Arbitrator. The Advocate Commissioner, being the Court Officer, should be treated with respect by the Revenue Authorities, Police Authorities and the District Forest Officers concerned. The Advocate Commissioner shall approach these Officers, if need arises. 4. By consent of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on either side this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is closed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.