ARB APPLN/754/2026 of L Subramaniam Vs Edwin Amudha on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These Applications have been filed a) to direct the first respondent to forthwith provide her self-attested KYC documents (including but not limited to her PAN Card, Aadhar Card, KYC self-declaration, and recent photographs) and sign all necessary forms and documents as may be required by the second respondent, DBS Bank India Limited, for the immediate revival and regularisation of the firm's bank account; and to cooperate fully and unconditionally with the applicant in all matters necessary for the immediate revival and smooth operation of the Firm's bank account, including personally attending the bank branch if so, required by the second respondent, and to refrain from any further obstructive actions and

b) to direct the second, DBS Bank India Limited, to forthwith revive and regularize the Firm's bank account, subject to the applicant completing all necessary KYC formalities on his behalf and providing an undertaking to indemnify the second respondent against any future claims arising from the first respondent's non-cooperation, or upon such other terms and conditions as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to ensure the continued operation of the firm and to direct the first respondent to pay the costs of this petition to the applicant.

2. Heard Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Mr.S.K.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mrs.K.Jayaganga, learned counsel appearing for Mrs.Ananva Gomathy learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant and the first respondent along with the first respondent's husband had originally constituted a partnership by entering into a partnership deed as early as in the year 2000. The partnership was primarily entered upon for execution of high value contracts awarded by the Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu for improvements of radial roads around Chennai city. Thereafter, the husband of the first respondent had voluntarily retired from the firm and reconstituted partnership deed was entered between the applicant and the first respondent which embeds within itself reference to arbitration, with regard to the dispute that arises between them. Immediately thereafter, a dispute had arisen between the parties as well as with the Government.

4. As dispute arose between the partnership firm and the Government, proceedings are initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and an award in favourable of the partnership firm came to be passed in the year 2015 and the same became the subject matter of a Section 34 application filed at the instance of the Government which came to be dismissed by this Court on 31.01.2025. In that regard, he would submit that the first respondent had taken out an application in O.A.No.846 of 2018, restraining the applicant from in any manner withdrawing any amounts receivable by the partnership firm from the Government of Tamil Nadu, pursuant to the arbitral award dated 20.10.2015, which came to be dismissed by orders of this Court on 31.01.2025. The attempt made by the respondent to implead herself in the Section 34 application also came to be dismissed. An attempt was also made by the first respondent to appoint an Arbitrator for resolution of the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent in the partnership firm in the O.P.No.892 of 2018 and the same came to be dismissed by this Court holding that such a prayer seeking for appointment was pre-matured and misconceived, as the award had attained finality. He would submit that the present dispute had arisen due to the non- cooperation of the applicant in providing the KYC forms to the second respondent which was operated by the partnership firm in the then Lakshmi Vilas Bank, which was now merged with the second respondent.

5. He would vehemently contend that the requirement of a KYC is a mandatory directive from the RBI and any defiance by any of the parties not only constitutes a breach for the defiance to the statutory and regulatory obligations that binds the firm. In view of the conduct of the first respondent, the firm's funds, which is in custody of the second respondent had been debit freezed and no transactions would take place in the said bank account. He would further submit that production of these KYC forms of the first respondent to the second respondent would not alter her rights and liabilities or share in the partnership. When that being so, there is no valid necessity for the first respondent in failing to grant the KYC details to the second respondent bank for enabling the bank account to be operated. Hence, he prays this Court to either direct the first respondent to forthwith provide the self attested KYC forms as indicated or on the other hand direct the second respondent to revive and regularise the firm's bank account which can be subject to the applicant completing all KYC formalities and recording an undertaking indemnified by the second respondent against any future claims made by the first respondent.

6. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the disputes had arisen between the applicant and the first respondent as early as in the year 2001 and also that a dispute as regards to the agreement entered by the partnership firm and the Highways Department culminated into an award passed by the sole Arbitrator as early as in the year 2015, which came to be affirmed in the year 2025, when the section 34 application filed by the Highways Department came to be dismissed by this Court. He would submit that thereafter a Section 21 notice was triggered by the applicant which was also duly responded to by the first respondent and the present attempt is only to encash the award amount, in which the first respondent has a substantial share and if the applications as prayed for are ordered, the applicant would take the benefit of the deposit of the award amount, which he would surreptitiously encash leaving the first respondent in lurch.

7. He would further submit that earlier the first respondent approached this Court by filing an application under Section 11 for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes which had been contested by the applicant and this Court recording a fact that only when the award is being complied with by the Highways Department, the sharing of amounts among the partners namely the applicant and the first respondent would arise and therefore, there was no necessity for invoking the arbitration clause at that juncture and therefore, held the same to be pre-mature with liberty to file a fresh application, the Original Petition was dismissed. The applicant had also triggered as a Section 21 notice in that regard after the award had attained its finality. Hence, any direction that is being given for reviving the bank accounts of the partnership firm in which the applicant and the first respondent are the partners would enable the applicant to clandestinely take the benefit of the award amount without the dispute between the applicant and the first respondent being resolved. Hence, he would submit that pending the arbitral proceedings that is to be initiated on the trigger notice issued by the applicant, the first respondent need not be directed to furnish the KYC details and hence, he prays this Court to dismiss these applications.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent bank would submit that without the KYC forms being submitted by either of the parties, the bank account would not be allowed to operate and hence, only if a KYC form is given by both the parties, the account could be revived and not otherwise.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

10. It is an admitted fact that the partnership deed which constituted three partners, was reconstituted in the year 2001 and thereafter, the disputes have also arisen between the parties, which has been evidenced by various proceedings that had been initiated much prior to the award which was passed in the year 2015, affirmed by this Court in the year 2025.

11. The applicant had approached this Court seeking for revival of the bank accounts of the partnership firm by calling upon the first respondent to submit her KYC details to the bank. The same has been opposed to by the first respondent solely on the ground that if the bank accounts are revived, the award amount which come into the said bank account would be siphoned off by the applicant. The dispute between the parties could only be resolved by an Arbitrator as agreed between the parties in their deed of reconstitution and the same had not been disputed by the respective parties.

12. In that regard, this Court is of the view to give a quietus to the issue in view of the affirmation of the award by this Court wherein the partnership firm had been benefited monetarily, a direction could be issued in the first respondent to submit a KYC forms to the second respondent for revival of the bank account, but however any amount, which is available in the bank account and any amount received pursuant to the award as affirmed by this court could be directed to be kept in an interest bearing account in a fixed deposit with the second respondent bank in the name of the firm and the same could be distributed based upon in an award which would be passed in the arbitral proceedings to be initiated by the respective parties.

13. Accordingly these applications stand disposed of, with a direction to the first respondent to submit her KYC forms to the second respondent bank and the second respondent bank is directed not to distribute any amounts that is available in the said account and to be received from the Highways Department in compliance with the award, dated 20.10.2015. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Pbn

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. PBN A Pre-delivery Order made in Arb Appln.Nos.774 & 754 of 2026 16.10.2026