Single judge allowed the applicant's request for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, appointing a retired Chief Architect as the sole arbitrator for a construction dispute.
Arbitration request allowed; Sri. V. Ravindranathn Nair appointed as arbitrator.
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 K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932
AR.No. 16 of 2010() ---------------------------
APPLICANT (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------
M/S.PAN PACIFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES (P) LTD,MERRA -17,PRIYA,MENON PARAMBU ROAD,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.G.RAMESH,AGED 55,S/O.K.N.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, RESIDING AT SAROJ ENCLAVE,MERRA 38-B,PONNIN CHIRA ROAD,KOCHI-24.
BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR
OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------------------------------
M/S.VIJAYAMOHINI MILLS THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN, J .
A.R.No.16 OF 2010
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The applicant, namely, M/s.Pan Pacific
Engineering Services (P) Ltd. entered into a
contract with the respondent, M/s.Vijayamohini
Mills, Thiruvananthapuram, for construction of the
Spinning Humidification Plant, underground trenches
and spinning department re-flooring for the
respondent mills at Thirumala, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure-A1 agreement was entered into between the
parties. Clause 8 thereof reads as follows:
“8. Any dispute or difference whatsoever
arising between the parties and of or
relatingtotheconstruction,
interpretation, application, meaning,
scope, operation or effect of this
contract or the validity or the breach
thereof, shall be settled by arbitration
in accordance Conditions of the Contract
and the award made in pursuance thereof
shall be final & binding on the parties.”
A.R.No.16 OF 2010 2
2. Disputes and differences arose between the
parties in respect of the contract. Annexure-A2
notice dated 27th May, 2009 was sent by the
applicant to the respondent in which a request was
made to the respondent to refer the dispute to
arbitration in terms of the agreement between the
parties. Though the respondent sent Annexure-A3
reply dated 18.7.2009, nothing was stated about the
demand for appointing an arbitrator. The applicant
sent Annexure-A5 notice dated 10th September, 2009
in which the request for appointing an arbitrator
was reiterated. The respondent did not send any
reply to the notice dated 10th September, 2009.
Hence the applicant has filed this Arbitration
Request under Section 11(5) and (6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
3. The applicant has filed a panel of
arbitrators in which three names of arbitrators
have been suggested.
A.R.No.16 OF 2010 3
4. Though the respondent entered appearance and
sought several adjournments to explore the
possibilities of settlement, it is reported that no
settlement could be arrived at. No counter
affidavit is filed by the respondent.
5. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the
view that the Arbitration Request is liable to be
allowed. There is no suggestion on the part of the
respondent as to the personnel of arbitrator. It
is submitted by both parties that a technical
expert is required for effectively carrying out the
arbitration proceedings.
6. The respondent has not raised any objection
to the appointment of any one of the three
arbitrators suggested by the applicant.
Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed
and Sri.V.Ravindranathn Nair, B.Arch, FIIA FIB 1024
(CA-76-2797), Retd.Chief Architect, Government of
A.R.No.16 OF 2010 4
Kerala and Registered Valuer, TC 16/1839(I),
Jagathy Junction , Thiruvananthapuram -695 014, is
appointed as the arbitrator.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
cms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the arbitration request filed by the applicant to appoint an arbitrator under the contract should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S.PAN PACIFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES (P) LTD
M/S.VIJAYAMOHINI MILLS
K.T.SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court