OA/333/2026 of MR S GNANASEKARAN Vs S S FOUNDATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED REP BY ITS MANAGIN on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The Original Application in OA.No.333 of 2026 has been filed seeking to pass an order of injunction restraining the respondents or his men, agents, or anybody acting on his authority to transfer, alienate, encumber or sell the property more fully described hereunder to any third party from alienating the property which is to be mortgaged with the applicant.

2. The Original Application in OA.No.334 of 2026 has been filed seeking to pass an order of Injunction in the nature of ANTI-ARBITRATION

INJUNCTION restraining the respondents from commencing second Arbitration proceedings in respect of the MOU dated 09.05.2013 and the Supplemental Agreement dated 27.06.2014, pursuant to the Lawyers Notice dated 28.03. 2026.

3. In a post-Award scenario, an application by the Award Debtor had been taken out for an injunction. On the other hand, the Award Holder had taken out an application for grant of anti arbitration injunction to restrain the Award Debtor from initiating the second arbitration proceedings. In that regard, the applications are being taken up together and the parties are referred to as Award Holder and Award Debtor.

4. Heard Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.V.Balasubramani, learned counsel appearing for Award Debtor and Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Award Holder.

5. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Award Debtor would submit that the parties have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding as early as on 09.05.2013 which was also supplemented by a further supplemental Memorandum of Understanding on 27.06.2014. He would submit that as per the said Memorandum of Understanding, the Award Holder had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- per Acre and the Award Debtors

have already sold 39.28 Acres to the Award Holder. He would submit that only a part payment had been made by the Award Holder and had failed to honour the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties. He would further submit that an arbitration proceedings was to resolve the dispute between the parties were initiated on the dispute that arose under the Memorandum of Understanding and the subsequent supplemental Memorandum of Understanding and an Award came to be passed on 29.05.2019. Even though, under Section 34, the Award was interfered, a Division Bench of this Court had over-turned the order of the learned Single Judge and affirmed the same and the Special Leave Petition filed against the same came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He would further submit that thereafter, the Award Debtor had also initiated a suit in O.S.No.83 of 2024 seeking for a permanent injunction and the same had been stayed by this Court in CRP.No.2039 of 2025. In that scenario, the Award Holder had initiated an Execution Petition seeking attachment and sale of the immovable property owned by one of the Award Debtor.

6. He would vehemently contend that various disputes that had arose between the parties were not the subject matter of the earlier arbitral proceedings which had prompted the Award Debtor to issue a fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is yet to be replied to by the Award Holder and in that regard seeking to protect the interest of the

Award Debtors, he seeks for an injunction restraining the Award Holder from in any manner transferring, alienating or encumbering or selling the Judges summon mentioned properties. Hence, he prays this Court to pass appropriate orders.

7. Further, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that there can be no injunction restraining a party from seeking to remedy his grievances. In that regard, when there was a cause of action that is subsisting with the litigant, that in this particular facts of the case, the cause of action to receive the unpaid consideration would be still available with the Award Debtors and therefore, this Court ought not to entertain the anti-injunction application as filed by the Award Holder.

8. Countering his arguments, Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the Award Debtors would at the outset submit that the claim for injunction of properties covered under the Memorandum of Understanding and supplemental Memorandum of Understanding which was the subject matter of earlier arbitral proceedings which had attained finality is an attempt made by the Award Holder to dislodge the benefits that had been vested with the Award Holder.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Award Holder would submit that the

disputes between the parties which arose out of the Memorandum of Understanding and the supplemental Memorandum of Understanding had culminated into an Award being passed and the Award had attained finality as both the SLP and Review Petition filed by the Award Debtors had been dismissed. He would submit that thereafter, an order of attachment in the Execution proceedings was also made and the Award Debtors had initiated a suit for permanent injunction which is a similar relief that had been sought before this Court. A Revision had been filed for striking off the plaint as being an abuse of process of Court and this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings in the suit in CRP.No.2039 of 2025. Only thereafter, a notice under Section 21 had been triggered with respect to a dispute that had already been resolved between the parties under the arbitration proceedings on the very same allegations that the suit had been laid.

10. He would submit that the claim of new cause of action is wholly without any merits and is being made to avoid and delay the execution proceedings. He would submit that the attempts made by the Award Debtors are nothing short of abuse of process of Court in trying to resurrect a dispute which has already been resolved through a validly held arbitral proceedings which had become final and binding between the parties. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the application filed by the Award Debtors and grant an injunction against them from initiating any further arbitral proceedings.

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

12. There is no dispute with regard to the Memorandum of Understanding and supplemental Memorandum of Understanding that had been entered between the parties. Disputes had arisen under the said Memorandum of Understandings in which an Award came to be passed and became final and binding on the parties when the Review filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Award Debtors came to be dismissed.

13. It is the claim of the Award Debtors that their application for injunction has arose out of a fresh cause of action that prevails arising out of the said Memorandum of Understandings which necessitated them for issuance of a notice under Section 21 for initiation of a fresh arbitral proceedings. It is not disputed by them that they had earlier approached a Civil Court for the relief of injunction in respect of various properties including the properties covered under the injunction application filed by them.

14. When that be the factual scenario, a conceptual reading of the plaint as filed by the Award Debtors would reveal that a suit had been based upon the

said Memorandum of Understandings and the transactions that had happened between the parties pursuant thereto. The Section 21 notice that had been triggered by the applicant based upon which the present Section 9 application filed by them is based upon their claim with regard to 26.17% of share in the properties appended to the Judges summons. Already having approached a Civil Court, the attempt made by the Award Debtors again to invoke the provisions of Section 9 particularly after the stay of the further proceedings in the suit by this Court in a Civil Revision Petition would only lead this Court to believe that the Award Debtors had frantically attempting to thwart the rights of the Award Holder from executing the decree. Having invoked the civil jurisdiction by approaching the competent Civil Court for the reliefs that is to be granted under the Memorandum of Understanding and the supplemental Memorandum of Understanding cannot be allowed to invoke the arbitration clause under the very same Memorandum of Understanding. Approaching the Civil Court would only indicate that the Award Debtors have waived their statutory right of invoking the arbitration clause that had been agreed upon between the parties. In that regard, this Court is of the view that the claim raised by the Award Holder that a second arbitration that is sought to be initiated by the party on the very same document need not be gone into.

15. Having approached a Civil Court for an identical relief, the Award Debtors cannot be allowed to abuse the of process of Court by taking recourse

for the very same dispute under the Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and in that regard, the Award Holder is also entitled for a grant of anti-injunction from invoking a fresh arbitration.

16. For the fore-going reasons, O.A.No.333 of 2026 stands dismissed and O.A.No.334 of 2026 is allowed and there shall be an order of injunction restraining the respondents therein from commencing any fresh arbitral proceedings in respect of Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.05.2013 and the Supplemental Agreement dated 27.06.2014 pursuant to the Section 21 notice dated 28.03.2026. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

K.KUMARESH BABU J. GBA OA Nos. 333 & 334 of 2026 16.10.2026