Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
P.N.SASIKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SUNNY MATHEW – Respondent
| 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
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
