Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr.Thomas K. Paulose vs Tata Realty And Infrastructure Ltd on 27 August, 2021

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                             AR NO. 54 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              DR.THOMAS K. PAULOSE, DENTIST, AGED 43 YEARS
              S/O DR.K.T.PAULOSE, RESIDING AT NECHUPADAM, 14 D,
              LINK HORIZON, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM 682 031

              BY ADV ROSHIN IPE JOSEPH



RESPONDENT:

              TATA REALTY AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD
              CIN -U70102MH2007PLC 168300 (FORMERLY M/S. TRIF
              KOCHI PROJECTS PVT. LTD.), REP. BY ITS MANAGING
              DIRECTOR, E BLOCK, VOLTAS PREMISES, T.B. KADAM MARG,
              CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI 400 033

              BY ADVS.SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS
              SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS
              SRI.ISAAC THOMAS
              SRI.P.G.CHANDAPILLAI ABRAHAM
              SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS
              SRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODANTHARA




     THIS     ARBITRATION   REQUEST   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
27.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 AR 54/21                              2




                                   ORDER

The applicant submits that he had entered into Anexure A1 agreement with the respondent Company to purchase an apartment, but that disputes have now arisen between them touching upon its terms. He says that since Annexure A1 agreement makes it clear that any such disputes ought to be resolved only through the mechanism of arbitration, he issued Annexure A4 notice to the respondent seeking that a suitable sole Arbitrator be appointed. He says that, however, the respondent has chosen not to cause any reply nor to accede to his request for arbitration, thus constraining him to approach this Court through this Arbitration Request.

2. I have heard Sri.Roshin Ipe Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Issac Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Interestingly, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that his client does not stand in the way of this Court nominating a suitable Arbitrator and in fact, suggested one name. He then prayed that if this Court is not inclined to accept the name suggested by him, then a AR 54/21 3 competent Arbitrator be appointed, who is either a retired District Judge or a retired Judge of this Court.

In the afore circumstances and taking note of the consensus between the parties as to the requirement for resolution of the disputes between them through arbitration, I order this Arbitration Request in the following manner:

(a) I nominate Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Punartham, Savitha Road, Near Kottankavu Temple, Vennala P.O., Kochi - 682 028 as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case, arising from Annexure A1 agreement.
(b) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, within a period of one week from today and to obtain a Statement of Disclosure from him under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(c) Once the Disclosure Statement is obtained from the learned Arbitrator, the Registry shall release the certified copy of this order, with a copy of the said statement appended to it, retaining the original of the AR 54/21 4 same on the files of this case.
(d) The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(e) In order to enable the Arbitrator to commence the proceedings without delay, I direct the parties to mark appearance before him at 11 a.m. on 11.10.2021.

Sd/-

Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv AR 54/21 5 APPENDIX OF AR 54/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURE Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 11.2.2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE PREDECESSOR OF THE RESPONDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2013 ISSUED BY M/S.TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD. INTIMATING THE APPLICANT THE SANCTIONING OF HOME LOAN Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION LETTER DATED 25.1.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 18.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE RESPONDENT Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT TRACKING REPORT OBTAINED FROM INDIA POST REGARDING DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT NUMBER RL650963604IN Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT TRACKING REPORT OBTAINED FROM INDIA POST REGARDING DELIVERY OF CONSIGNMENT NUMBER RL650963581IN Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE S.13(2) SECURITISATION NOTICE DATED 17.6.2021 ISSUED BY M/S.TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD. TO APPLICANT.