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 1]

Kerala High Court

Ramesh Palackal Aged 40 Years vs Annexure R1(A): Copy Of The Agreement ... on 30 December, 2011

Author: V.Chitambaresh

Bench: V.Chitambaresh

       

  

  

 
 
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                    PRESENT:

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

              TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAYOF AUGUST 2014/4TH BHADRA, 1936

                                               AR.No. 16 of 2014
                                             -----------------------------

PETITIONER:
---------------------

           RAMESH PALACKAL AGED 40 YEARS
           S/O.NARAYANAN, PROPRIETOR, PALACKAL BUILDERS
           PALACKAL HOUSE, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, PALACHUVADU
           KAKKANAD, CSEZ P.O.,PIN 682 037

           BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.SAJEEV KUMAR
                         SRI.LAJI SAM ZACHARIAH


OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENT:
-----------------------------------------------

           SANTHOSH EAPEN
           PROPRIETOR, M/S.UNITAC BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
           30/1273, D8, 4TH FLOOR
           JAZZ ARCADE, VYTTILA 682 019.

           BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
                         SRI.K.S.DILIP
                          SRI.SAJU N.A.
                          SMT.G.LEKHA
                          SMT.P.J.FLONY


           THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
           26-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:




DCS

AR.No. 16 of 2014




                                             APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :-
-------------------------------------------


ANNEXURE A1:                  NOTARISED COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.12.2011
                              EXECUTED BETWEEN RAMESH PALACKAL AND
                              SANTHOSH EAPEN

ANNEXURE A2:                  COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 05.02.2014 SENT BY
                              COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A3:                  COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD

ANNEXURE A4:                  COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 11.2.2014 SENT BY
                              RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A5:                  COPY OF SCHEDULE APPENDED TO ANNEXURE A1

ANNEXURE A6:                  COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 795/2014 OF PALARIVATTOM
                              POLICE STATION

ANNEXURE A7:                  COPY OF CAVEAT PETITION FILED BY OPPOSITE PARTY


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :-

ANNEXURE R1(a):               COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10.5.2012 SIGNED
                              BY THE PETITIONER




                                                             /TRUE COPY/




                                                             P.A. TO JUDGE




DCS



                        V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
                       -------------------------------
                          A.R. No. 16 of 2014
                 -----------------------------------------
               Dated this the 26th day of August, 2014

                             O R D E R

The following agreements are relied on by the parties in this Arbitration Request filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:-

i) Annexure A1 agreement to which the applicant and the opposite party are admittedly signatories.
ii) Annexure R1(a) agreement to which the opposite party is not a signatory.

2. Only Annexure A1 agreement signed by both the parties can be treated as an arbitration agreement in writing under Section 7(4)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The opposite party has a contention that Annexure A1 agreement was intended to be superceded by Annexure R1(a) agreement. This is because Annexure A1 agreement contained an arbitration clause to which the opposite party is not agreeable. The petitioner on the other hand disputes the signature found in Annexure R1(a) agreement and both the agreements do not however contain a schedule of the work. A.R. No. 16 of 2014 2

3. Annexure A1 agreement provides for resolution of the dispute or difference by resort to arbitration. Clause 13 thereof is as follows:-

"13. In case of any dispute or difference between the parties concerning the contract or any clause of this agreement the same will be referred for Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator to be appointed jointly by both the parties."

The dispute stems out of a labour contract between the parties. The difference between them has necessarily to be resolved by arbitration.

4. The arbitrator can rule on his own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Whether Annexure R1(a) agreement intended to supercede Annexure A1 agreement can be decided by the arbitrator. Either parties are at liberty to prefer their claim statement before the arbitrator.

5. I therefore appoint Mr. Justice P.R. Raman (Retired) as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is free to fix his fee and also the venue of hearing.

The Arbitration Request is allowed.

V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE DCS