P.N.SASIKUMAR vs SUNNY MATHEW - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21939

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 21939

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
P.N.SASIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SUNNY MATHEW – Respondent
AR NO.48 OF 2026

Important Points

Proper proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can include substitution of an arbitrator when a nominated arbitrator returns the reference.

Subject

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator

Act Referred

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: S.11, S.15, S.12
Indian Partnership Act, 1932: S.43

Headnote

The relevant provisions discussed include the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Sections 11(5), 15(2), and 11(8) read with Section 12(1). The case concerns a dispute needing arbitration where a retired Judge returned the reference, leading to a request for a substitute arbitrator, identified as retired Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair. The court concluded that the petitioner's request for the appointment of a new arbitrator was justified and granted.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.RISHIKESH SHENOY, N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SUSY GEORGE, ANN MARY.V.I, GAYATHRI JAYAKUMAR, KURIAN GEORGE POOTHICOTE
For the Respondents: G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

Table of Content
1. initial arbitration request and necessity for substitution. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's observation on the joint submission for a new arbitrator. (Para 3)
3. disposal of the arbitration request. (Para 4)

O R D E R

By order dated 27.01.2025 in Arbitration Request No.19 of 2025, a former Judge of this Court was nominated as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent. Subsequently, the learned retired Judge nominated returned the reference and communicated the same to the parties. Thereafter left with no other option, the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request under Section 11 (5) read with Section 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .

2. Respondent entered appearance through counsel.

At the time of hearing, both sides submitted that this Arbitration Request can be treated as an application under Section 15 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to substitute the Arbitrator. By the order passed in Arbitration Request No.19 of 2025, an Arbitrator was nominated by this Court.

3. Today when the matter is taken up, a memo filed by the respondent was brought to my notice wherein it is stated that retired Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair is being jointly suggested as the Arbitrator to substitute the learned retired Judge who was nominated by the order in A.R.No.19 of 2025. In view of the joint submission made, retired Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair is nominated as the Arbitrator in substitution of the learned retired Judge who was nominated by the order passed in A.R.No.19 of 2025.

4. Registry to obtain statement of disclosure from the learned Arbitrator as stipulated under Section 11 (8) read with Section 12 (1) of the Act.

Arbitration Request is disposed of as above.