Kerala High Court
M/S.Loyal Construction India (P)Ltd vs M/S.Glosoft Technologies (P)Ltd
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934
AR.No. 19 of 2012
------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
M/S.LOYAL CONSTRUCTION INDIA (P)LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI.M.D.SEBASTIAN, S/O. DEVASSIA, MUTTAPALLIL HOUSE
ARALAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN
SRI.S.K.SAJU
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. M/S.GLOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES (P)LTD.
SITUATED AT G.TEC. INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD
CALICUT-673 002.
2. SRI.MEHROOF I MANALODY
MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S. GLOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES (P)LTD.
SITUATED AT G.TEC., INDUS AVENUE, KALLAI ROAD
CALICUT-673 002.
3. SRI.V.P.ABDUL KAREEM
CHAIRMAN, M/S. GLOSOFT TECHNOLOGIES (P)LTD.
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.4
OPPOSITE TAMARIND NEST APARTMENTS
NEAR SWIMMING POOL, CHEROOTTY NAGAR HOUSING COLONY
KOZHIKODE-673 004.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAGHUNATH
BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-
2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AR NO.19/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 28/6/09
BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT DT 4.7.11
FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 BEFORE THE DISTRICT LEGAL
SERVICES AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DT 10.1.12
ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 11.2.12 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2.
//True Copy//
PA to Judge
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
Arbitration Request No.19 OF 2012
=========================
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2012
O R D E R
Annexure A1 is an agreement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It appears that there are certain disputes between them and therefore in terms of Clause 21 of the agreement, petitioner sought the appointment of an Arbitrator as per Annexure C notice. On receipt of the notice, the 1st respondent replied by Annexure D suggesting certain other names to be appointed as Arbitrator and also disputing the claims in Annexure C notice. Since the parties could not agree on the Arbitrator, this application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Act.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Respondents do not object to the appointment of an Arbitrator and the only question is regarding the person to be appointed and in fact the parties have left the choice to this court.
Having regard to the above, I appoint Justice V.Ramkumar, Former Judge, High Court of Kerala, Gopeekesavam, Building NO.C-50/2453, Vembulli Lane, Vyttila, Ernakulam, Kochi 682019 A.R. No.19/12 :2 : as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. The Arbitrator will issue notice to the parties concerned and conclude the proceedings expeditiously. It s clarified that it will also be open to the Arbitrator to decide on the venue of arbitration which also is agreeable to the parties and to decide on the terms.
Registry will communicate this order to Justice V.Ramkumar, Former Judge, High Court of Kerala.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp