The PRG Shipping Private Limited represented by it vs Tamil Nadu Maritime board, represented by its Vice
- Court
- Madras High Court
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 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. 1268 & 1269 of 2026
The PRG Shipping Private Limited,
Old Number 216, new number 236, 1A,
Thambu Chetty St, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001.
Represented by its Director
N Rajaji
..Applicant(s) in
Arb.Appln.No.1268 of
2026
The PRG Shipping Private Limited,
st
Old Number 216, new number 236, 1 Floor,
Thambu Chetty St, Parrys, Chennai – 600 001.
Represented by its Director
G.Manigandan
..Applicant(s) in
Arb.Appln.No.1269 of
2026
Vs
1. Tamil Nadu Maritime board,
Represented by its Vice Chairman and
Chief Executive officer,
Greenways Road, No.171,
South Keshavaperumalpuram,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 28.
2. The Port Officer
O/O Tamil Nadu Maritime Board,
Port Office, Nagapattinam.
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
..Respondent(s) in both
Arb.Applns.
PRAYER in Arb.Appln.No.1268 of 2026: - Arbitration Application filed to
pass an order, to stay the operation and further proceedings pursuant to the
Letter bearing No.01/S/2025 dated 12/06/2026 and the e-Tender Notice bearing
Ref.No.2854/S1/2026 dated 19/06/2026 issued by the Respondents, pending
disposal of the arbitration proceedings and pass such and further or other orders
as this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in Arb.Appln.No.1269 of 2026: - Arbitration Application filed to
pass an order to stay the operation and further proceedings pursuant to the
Letter bearing No.02/S1/2025 dated 12.06.2026 and the e-Tender notice bearing
Ref.No.2855/S1/2026 dated 19.06.2026 issued by the respondents, pending
disposal of the arbitration proceedings and pass such and further or other orders
as this court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In both Arb.Applns.:-
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Udhayakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam
Additional Advocate General
for Mr. V. Prasad
ORDER
Arb. Appln.No.1268 of 2026 has been filed to pass an order, to stay the
operation and further proceedings pursuant to the Letter bearing No.01/S/2025
dated 12/06/2026 and the e-Tender Notice bearing Ref.No.2854/S1/2026 dated
19/06/2026 issued by the Respondents, pending disposal of the arbitration
proceedings.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
2. Arb. Appln.No.1268 of 2026 has been filed to pass an order to stay the
operation and further proceedings pursuant to the Letter bearing No.02/S1/2025
dated 12.06.2026 and the e-Tender notice bearing Ref.No.2855/S1/2026 dated
19.06.2026 issued by the respondents, pending disposal of the arbitration
proceedings.
3. Heard Mr.R.Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the applicant and
Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for
Mr. V. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the
applicant was issued with an allotment letter whereby a vacant space at
Nagapattinam Passenger terminal was given to him on terms of rent, having
assessed the qualification and suitability of the applicant. Learned Counsel
would further summit that even though the initial period was only for a period
of one year, the same stood extended for a further period of two years by
proceedings. The letter of Approval of the first respondent dated 15.12.2025
was issued, which indicates the extension of the time period ends on
23.12.2027. He would further point out that in the interregnum a
communication was also forwarded to by the first respondent, on the strength of
a mail received from one of the ferry operators complaining of space constraint.
He would further submit that the said ferry operator had been interfering with
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
the business carried out by the applicant and has been attempting to relieve the
applicant of its right to operate the shop. In that regard, it is the contention that
based upon the pressure wielded upon by the said operator, notice of
termination in advance had been issued by the first respondent, on the pretext of
inviting bids for grant of the spaces for a shop in the port premises. He would
submit that the applicant is entitled to operate till the end of the lease period
without intervention. He would submit that the injunction granted as prayed for
would have to be made absolute till the disposal of the arbitral proceedings.
5. Countering his argument, the Learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the first respondent would submit that it is true the applicant has
been granted with the lease of a space within the designated custom bound area.
He would submit this process of granting the space was made upon negotiations
and not as provided under the Tamil Nadu transparency in Tenders Act, which
binds the first respondent. In that regard , he would submit that the agreement
provides for termination without cause and such termination has been made to
allot the shop based upon tender system, which will be more transparent and
would also earn more rent than what has been currently paid by the applicant.
Further, he would submit that in the open tender system, the applicant is free to
participate, and if being successful would be granted the lease. He would further
contend that the relief is in the nature of a special performance and cannot be
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
granted by this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and had perused the materials available on record.
7. There is no denial or disputed facts with regard to the grant of lease in
favour of the applicant. Only in exercise of clause 18 of the agreement an
advance notice has been given. The process in which the applicant had been
given the benefit of lease has been contested as being made without authority of
law or having been made in a clout manner. The only reason attributed by the
respondent is that if an open tender process is adopted the space that can be
rented to the applicant would fetch a better price benefiting the first respondent.
The first respondent had taken a conscious commercial decision for letting out
the space on rent to the applicant for a defined period. It has been admitted that
even before the expiry of the term of lease by efflux of time period of lease is
sought to be shortened by terminating the same. In that case, this Court is of the
prima facie view that the applicant would be entitled for damages for
termination of the lease for the remaining period. It is to be noted that the first
respondent is a Statutory Authority being funded by the Government from the
money of the public exchequer. Having taken a conscious decision to appoint
the applicant as licensee and to terminate by a policy which was available even
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
at the point of appointing cannot be a reason for termination. If any damages are
awarded to the applicant, that would be made good only by the first respondent
only from the funds of the public exchequer.
8. It is made clear that the findings are only for the purpose of application
and cannot be extended in the arbitral proceedings. Primarily, considering that it
would only be public exchequer funds which may be involved as indicated
above, this Court is inclined to make the order of injunction absolute.
9. Accordingly the application stands allowed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. It is made clear that if the applicant fails to initiate arbitral
proceedings within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today, the order granted
shall automatically stands vacated without reference to this Court.
16.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
To
1. Tamil Nadu Maritime board,
Represented by its Vice Chairman and
Chief Executive officer,
Greenways Road, No.171,
South Keshavaperumalpuram,
Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai 28.
2. The Port Officer
O/O Tamil Nadu Maritime Board,
Port Office, Nagapattinam.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )
Arb Appln Nos. 1268 and 1269 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
Arb Appln No. 1268 of 2026
16.10.2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )