Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
C.H. ROOPESH – Appellant
Versus
SUNILKUMAR – Respondent
AR 108 2023
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 11(8), 12(1) - The court nominated an arbitrator to resolve disputes under the arbitration clause of the agreement following the acceptance of a previous judgment confirming the agreement's arbitration stipulation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed disputes arose from an agreement with the respondent's predecessor. The additional Munsiff ruled the matter non-maintainable due to an arbitration clause in the agreement, leading to the current proceedings for arbitrator appointment.
Issues: Whether the arbitration clause in the agreement is enforceable and if an arbitrator should be appointed to resolve the disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts is affirmed and takes precedence over civil litigation, necessitating appointment of an arbitrator when warranted by the parties' agreement.
Final Decision: The court appointed an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties.
O R D E R
The parties, through their learned respective counsel, are ad idem that Annexure – F judgment of the court of the Additional Munsiff, Irinjalakuda, in O.S.No.268/2022 filed by petitioner herein, binds both of them.
2. It transpires that the petitioner had approached the Civil Court alleging that disputes had arisen between the parties with respect to Annexure-A agreement; but that Annexure-F judgment was issued, holding that since there is an arbitration clause in the said agreement, the suit is not maintainable.
3. Since the parties are now without dispute that Annexure – F judgment remains without contest from either of their sides, I am certain that this Court should take full cognizance of the same.
4. As far as the facts involved in this case are concerned, the petitioner alleges that he had entered into Annexure-A Agreement with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent and that the dispute arose between them with respect to its terms. He asserts that, as per Clause 16 of Annexure-A Agreement, the parties are now bound to agree to adjudicate and resolve the disputes between them as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’ for short).
5. Since the afore assertions are without contest by the respondents and because, as I have already said above, they have accepted Annexure- F judgment without demur, I am certain that this Arbitration Request is deserving of being allowed. In fact, they also concede that an Arbitrator has to be appointed to resolve the disputes afore mentioned.
6. The records further reveal that the petitioners have issued Annexure -G notice calling upon the respondents to agree to the nomination of an Arbitrator, but they have neither responded to it, nor agreed to the same.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Arbitration Request in the following manner:
(a) I nominate Sri.K.P.Bhagaval Singh, 'Pooja', Don Bosco View Road, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur – 680 121, Mob.No:9400927733; as the sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case arising from Annexure-A agreement.
(b) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator within a period of two weeks from today and to obtain a Statement of Disclosure from him under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .
(c) Once the Disclosure Statement is obtained from the learned Arbitrator, the Registry shall release the certified copy of this order, with a copy of the said statement appended to it, retaining the original of the same on the files of this case.
(d) The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .
(e) In order to enable the Arbitrator to commence the proceedings without delay, I direct the parties to mark appearance before him at 11 AM on 03.10.2023.
Needless to say, every contention of the parties, including with respect to the legality of the agreement in question, and arbitrarility of the disputes, are left open to be decided appropriately by the Arbitrator, if it is impelled before him.
Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn APPENDIX OF AR 108/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 30.12.2016 EXECUTED BETWEEN S.
MURALEEDHARA RAO AND THE RESPONDENT Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1124/2021 OF IRINJALAKKUDA S.R.O Annexure-C TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.268/2022 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Annexure-D TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.2/2022 IN O.S.268/2022 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Annexure-E TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.2/2022 IN O.S.268/2022 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Annexure-F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.12.2022 IN O.S.268/2022 ON THE FILES OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Annexure-G TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED
07.02.2023 ISSUED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPL
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
