Mr.K.M.Vishnu Vardhan vs Mrs.S.Manju Parkavi

Court
Madras High Court

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
AND
OA NO. 641 OF 2026
K.M.Vishnu Vardhan
..Petitioner
Vs
1. S.Manju Parkavi
2. M.Annakkalanjiyam
3. K.M.Vidhyasagar
..Respondent(s)
Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
Prayer:
Judges Summon filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section
9 (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to direct the first respondent
to furnish security for the sum of Rs.8,97,49,999/-
OA No. 641 of 2026
Prayer:
Judges Summon filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Section
9 (ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to grant interim injunction
restraining the Respondents from alienating or encumbering the properties
morefully mentioned in the schedule to the judges summon.
For Petitioner:
(in both cases)
Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondent:
(in both cases)
Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar for R1
No Appearance for R2 & R3
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
These two applications are connected to each other and as such, are taken
up and disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard Mr. S.Mukunth , the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the K.M.Vishnu Vardhan, and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
S.Manju Parkavi.
3. K.M.Vishnu Vardhan, who is the petitioner in both the applications, is
the son of late M.K.Mathivathanan . The second respondent /
M.Annakkalanjiyam is the mother of the petitioner, K.M.Vishnu Vardhan , and
the respondents 1 & 3, S.Manju Parkavi and K.M.Vidhyasagar are the sister and
brother of the petitioner.
5. The grievance as projected on behalf of the petitioner is that there was
a memorandum of understanding between the parties, namely,
M.Annakkalanjiyam, K.M.Vidhyasagar, K.M.Vishnu Vardhan, and S.Manju
Parkavi. As per the same, a sum of Rs.8,97,49,999/- was paid to the sister,
S.Manju Parkavi , towards the release of her shares in the properties. Even
though she had received the amount and issued a receipt, subsequently, she is
disputing the very memorandum of understanding and as such, they have
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
invoked arbitration. As a matter of fact, an application under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed for the appointment of an
arbitrator in Sr. No.ATN20220019937C202600014. In the meanwhile, the
prayers sought are for furnishing security for that amount and also for
restraining the alienation of the property mentioned in the schedule to O.A.No.
641 of 2026.
6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that in view of the various disputes that have arisen between the parties,
resulting in the pendency of T.O.S.No.21 of 2023 and a civil suit, it would
suffice at this stage if an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating
the properties mentioned in the schedule is granted and all the other issues can
be adjudicated by the arbitrator.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the S.Manju Parkavi - first
respondent would submit that as far as the sum of Rs.8,97,49,999/- is
concerned, the same was paid pursuant to the first memorandum of settlement,
under which the first respondent agreed to release her share in respect of the
property known as Kasi Theatre. After receiving the payment, she honoured her
commitment and also executed the registered deed. Therefore, there is no merit
in the prayer to furnish security for the said sum.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
8. As far as alienation is concerned, the learned counsel would submit
that the second memorandum of understanding itself is disputed by the said
S.Manju Parkavi - first respondent. It was obtained at the police station by
issuing a lookout circular and when the petitioner returned from abroad, she was
taken straight to the police station, where this new document was executed.
Immediately thereafter, a notice was sent rescinding the same and the arbitration
clause is contained only in that memorandum of understanding and not in the
earlier family arrangement. The earlier family arrangement contains different
stages of settlement, in which the respondent, S.Manju Parkavi , complied with
her part and it is only the applicants herein who could not complete the third
part by way of the dispute between them and the other members of the family.
In any event, the petitioner claim ownership of the property by virtue of a will,
which is the subject matter of the T.O.S. Therefore, they are indirectly
attempting to adjudicate what is pending before the T.O.S. by invoking
arbitration. The petitioner never voluntarily signed any arbitration agreement
and has never expressly agreed to arbitration. Hence, the applications have to be
dismissed.
9. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and
perused the material records of the case.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
10. With reference to the validity or otherwise of the arbitration
agreement, the issue has to be contested before the arbitrator or in the
application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed
by the petitioner for the appointment of an arbitrator, as the case may be. As far
as the prayers made under Section 9 are concerned, even though a prayer is
made for furnishing security, considering the prima facie submissions made by
the learned counsel for the respondent and the submission made by the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner that they are pressing the prayer only with
reference to the interim injunction, the prayer in Arbitration Application No.
1155 of 2026 is not granted.
11. As far as O.A.No.641 of 2026 is concerned, even though prima facie
contentions are raised with reference to the validity of the arbitration agreement,
even as per the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, ultimately,
the issue has to be gone into only in the T.O.S. and the other suit. It is also
stated that criminal proceedings were wrongfully initiated and the agreement
was entered into. Therefore, even considering the same, without prejudice to the
right of the first respondent, S.Manju Parkavi , to raise all the preliminary issues
in the Section 11 application or before the arbitrator and considering the balance
of convenience, it would be in favour of maintaining the status quo in respect of
the properties.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
12. In view thereof, neither the petitioner nor the respondents shall
alienate the properties mentioned in the schedule until the issue is finally
decided in the pending arbitration proceedings or is decided otherwise in the
pending T.O.S. or in the civil suit, as the case may be.
13. In the result, Arb.Appln.No.1155 of 2026 is dismissed and
O.A.No.641 of 2026 is ordered . No costs.
28-10-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
NSL
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )

Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY J.
NSL
Arb Appln No. 1155 of 2026
AND
OA NO. 641 OF 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:07:43 pm )