Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21847
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944 AR NO. 67 OF 2019 APPLICANT:
SPL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
CORPORATE OFFICE,15 KASTURI RANGAN ROAD, ALWARPET, CHNNAI-600 018,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER RESPONDENTS:
KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT,TC 11/339,JAGATH BUILDING, KESTON ROAD, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR SPL GP SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Sathish Ninan, J.
==============================
Arbitration Request No.67 of 2019 ==========================
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2022
ORDER
The appellant was awarded the work for “KSTP -II Year Maintenance Programme for Kollam-Ayoor Road(RMC- 16)”. An agreement dated 01.09.2003 was executed between the parties. There arose disputes between the parties. The petitioner, invoking the Arbitration Clause in the agreement, as per Annexure D requested the respondent for appointment of an Arbitrator. The request was declined by the respondent as per Annexure E. The respondent took the stand that the claim has already been arbitrated and Award passed, and refused to co- operate for further arbitration. It is accordingly that the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent opposing the prayer.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior Government Pleader.
4. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has reiterated the very same contentions in the reply notice that, the dispute was already arbitrated and Award passed. The said Award was challenged by both sides before the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram in OP(ARB) No.57 of 2009 and connected case. The Arbitration O.Ps were disposed of as per judgment dated 27.10.2017. Challenging the same an appeal as Arbitration Appeal No.6 of 2019 is pending before this Court. In view thereof, the present request for appointment of an Arbitrator cannot be entertained, it is contended. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of the said arbitration proceedings is different from the disputes raised now.
5. No materials were produced before this Court to show the scope of the earlier arbitration proceedings. It needs to be ascertained as to whether the claims urged now were the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. Though the petitioner claims to have sent separate notices with regard to each of the claims, the same could not be established by materials. Even a copy of the same is not produced. In the circumstances, the request of the petitioner is not liable to be entertained.
The Arbitration Request fails and is dismissed.
