Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J
C.GURU SUBRAMANIAM – Appellant
Versus
M/S LIFEX HEALTH CARE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration request initiated by applicant. (Para 1) |
| 2. lack of respondent presence noted. (Para 2) |
| 3. partnership disputes lead to arbitration clauses. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. court mandates appointment of arbitrators. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
1. This is an application under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (for short, the Act) to appoint an Arbitrator in order to resolve the disputes between the applicant and the respondents 2 and 3, arising out of Annexure A1 and A2 partnership deeds.
2. Even though notice was served on the respondents, there is no appearance for the respondents.
3. The applicant and respondents 2 and 3 were partners of the first respondent partnership firm as per Annexure A1 partnership deed. Subsequently, the applicant retired from the partnership as per Annexure A2 reconstitution deed. The grievance of the applicant is that, in spite of his retirement, the amount due to him was not paid and hence the applicant sent Annexure A3 notice, demanding Rs. 25,00,000/- as his share of capital in the first respondent. Though the respondents received the said notice, they did not reply. It is averred in the Application that after receipt of A
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
