A SRIDHAR Vs. RAJESH RANGARAJAN; G RAJAGOPAL; R KALYANI; R S R SECURITIES PVT LTD; S DINESH; DHANAM; S JAYAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.No.1867 of 2014 has been filed by the 2nd defendant to dismiss the suit on the ground that the suit is hit by res judicata. A.No.1868 of 2014 has been filed by the 3rd defendant seeking to reject the plaint.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff has instituted the suit against the defendants 1 to 7 for recovery of a sum of Rs.39,59,120/- together with interest at 18% per annum. The applicant/ 3rd defendant would contend that the suit filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of money against the defendants is not maintainable as the suit is barred by limitation. They would further contend that all transactions alleged in the plaint is in the year 2000 whereas the suit has been filed on 22.08.2005. It is further contended that the plaintiffs were well aware of the facts of the transactions and they have also filed Arbitration in O.P.No.724 of 2002 before NSE and the said arbitration proceedings were initiated by the plaintiffs claiming recovery of Rs.6,29,565/- against the 2nd defendant and the Arbitrator had decided the matter rejecting the claim as false bogus and frivolous. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed in Appeal No.3A of 2004 by the Appellate Bench Arbitration Department, The Stock Exchange, Mumbai by order dated 09.06.2004. It is further contended that the arbitration award having given no liberty to file a civil suit while rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the same relief against the defendants is not maintainable. The second defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the arbitration proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs was rejected and the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs was also dismissed and the same has became final and therefore, the suit is hit by res judicata.

(3.) Mr.S.Veeraghavan, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court rendered in the case of Sardar Harnam Puri V. Union of India, 2006 AIR(Raj) 36 in support of his contention that the separate suit for the same subject matter after adjudication of dispute by arbitrator is barred by principle of res judicata. He also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court N.Ravindran v. V.Ramahcandran, 2011 3 CTC 153 , in support of his contention that the plaint be rejected if the suit is barred by limitation.