L Subramaniam vs Edwin Amudha
- Court
- Madras High Court
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
01.09.2026
16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Arb Appln.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
Mr.L.Subramaniam
Partner of the reconstituted Partnership
firm M/s.S.Arumairaj
No.12A, Sriram Nagar, Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018.
… Applicant in both Applns
Vs
1.Mrs.Edwin Amudha
Partner of the reconstituted Partnership
firm M/s.S.Arumairaj
nd
No.H888, 22 Street,
Chennai – 600 040.
2.M/s.DBS Bank India Limited
Rep., by its Branch Manager,
st
1 Floor, 323, Arcot Road,
Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024
… Respondent (s) in both applns
COMMON PRAYER:- This Arbitration Application had been filed under
Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w Section 9 (1) (ii)(e) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 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
__________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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 respondent, 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 .
For Appellant(s): Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.K.Chandrakumar
for R1 in both Applns
Mrs.K.Jayaganga
for Mrs.Ananva Gomathy
for R2 in both Applns
------
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
__________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
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
__________
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )
Arb A.Nos.754 & 774 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
PBN
A Pre-delivery Order made in
Arb Appln.Nos.774 & 754 of 2026
16.10.2026
__________
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:11 pm )