HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :…
Appointment of Retired Judge J.M. James as arbitrator to settle disputes regarding unfulfilled share buyback; matter remanded arbitration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929
AR.No. 57 of 2006()
APPLICANT:
THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MPEDA HOUSE COCHIN-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.SIMON JOHN.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SRI.MITHUN MARKOS
RESPONDENTS:
4TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 040.
BY
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
A.R. NO. 57 of 2006
Dated this the 13th day of March , 2008
O R D E R
Service on the respondents is yet to be completed.
Name of the respondents are called. Absent. Set ex parte.
Authority is an authority constituted under the Ministry of Commerce by the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act. Under a scheme formulated by the applicant to render support for the promotion and establishment of projects for processing and export of marine products, the applicant participated in the equity capital of new companies at the request of promoters of the said companies. Ext.P1 Financial Collaboration Agreement executed for the purpose provided that the said promoters would buyback the equity shares on the expiry of a period of five years at an agreed price. The grievance of the applicant is that the promoters who are opposite parties in the Arbitration Request have not re-purchased the shares on the agreed price. Clause 10 of Ext.P1 Agreement is a valid
arbitration cause for referring differences and disputes arising between the parties to arbitration. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause by issuing Ext.P3 letter and nominated their arbitrator and calling upon the opposite parties to appoint their arbitrator. There was no response from the respondents. Thus the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties have failed and in my opinion the applicant is justified in invoking the statutory appointment procedure.
The Arbitrator will enter on reference and pass his award at the earliest.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.
dpk
THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
SHRI.V. CHANDRASEKHAR
SHRI.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN
SHRI.N. ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.K.K. KUMARASWAMY
SHRI.R. TARAJAN
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
J.M. JAMES
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
