Allowed

Dlf Universal Ltd. v. Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Feb 2011AR/4/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam appointed Justice M.Ramachandran (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator for Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd. at the request of DLF Universal Ltd., pursuant to the parties' undisputed agreement, to complete the three-member arbitral tribunal after the withdrawal of Justice K.A. Nayar.

What did the court decide?

Justice M.Ramachandran (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator.

Dlf Universal Ltd. Vs Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd. — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932

AR.No.4 of 2011()

PETITIONER (S):

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. DLF GALLERIA 12TH FLOOR, DLF CITY PHASE - IV GURGAON 122002 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.C.P.POONACHA

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.DIJO SEBASTIAN SMT.VINEETHA SUSAN THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------

¶12

TECIL CHEMICAL & HYDRO POWER LTD. P.O. CHINGAVANAM - 686 531 DIST. KOTTAYAM (KERALA).

¶13

ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS FOR R SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN FOR R SRI.BINU MATHEW FOR R SRI.TERRY V.JAMES FOR R SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH FOR R SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) FOR R SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA FOR R

¶14

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2011, ALONG WITH A.R.NO.5 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

A.R.Nos.4 & 5 of 2011

¶17

Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and

¶20

the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted the following undisputed facts. The applicant nominated Mr.T.S.Sethurathnam, the retired Chairman of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, as their nominee arbitrator to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators, as per the agreed procedure between the parties. Since the respondent did not appoint their nominee arbitrator, the applicant filed A.R.Nos.27 of 2006 and 28 of 2006. As per order dated 10.11.2006, Justice K.A.Nayar was appointed as the arbitrator. Since the two arbitrators, namely, Justice K.A.Nayar and Dr.T.S.Sethurathnam could not agree on the personnel of the Presiding Arbitrator, the applicant filed A.R.Nos.4 of 2007 and 5 of 2007. As per the

¶21

A.R.Nos.4 & 5 of 2011 2

¶22

order dated 21.2.2007, Justice U.L.Bhat, Retired Chief Justice, was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator. Thereafter, Justice U.L.Bhat withdrew from the arbitration on account of health reasons. The remaining two arbitrators agreed to appoint Justice S.S.Subramani as the Presiding Arbitrator. Thereafter, Justice K.A.Nayar withdrew from arbitration on account of health reasons and he intimated the same as per the letter dated 10.6.2010. By the communication dated 17.6.2010, Justice S.S.Subramani directed the parties to nominate another arbitrator so that the Arbitral Tribunal could be constituted. The parties could not agree. Therefore, the applicant has filed these Arbitration Requests to appoint an arbitrator. Now an arbitrator is to be appointed in the place of Justice K.A.Nayar as the nominee arbitrator of the respondent.

¶23

It is agreed by the counsel for the applicant and the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent that Justice M.Ramachandran (Retd.) may be appointed as the

¶24

A.R.Nos.4 & 5 of 2011

¶25

¶26

arbitrator so that the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the Presiding Arbtirator Justice S.S.Subramani, Justice M.Ramachandran and Dr.T.S.Sethurathnam could function as the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶27

In view of the agreement between the parties, Justice M.Ramachandran is appointed as the arbitrator so as to constitute the Arbitral Tribunal as mentioned above. The arbitrators would be entitled to fix their fee.

¶28

The Arbitration Requests are allowed as above.

¶29

K.T.SANKARAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

csl

Dlf Universal Ltd. v. Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dlf Universal Ltd. v. Tecil Chemical & Hydro Power Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.J.T.L Projects (P) Ltd. Vs Omprakash Ramachandani

Moideenkutty Vs Abraham George

Balan Vs Devaki

Anees Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Kumar K Vs James Varghese

T.Nasirudeen and Anr. Vs K.P.Sreedharan and Ors.