Allowed

P.T.Mohan Babu v. P.T.Chandra Babu

Kerala HC21 Feb 2011AR/42/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the petitioner's arbitration request to appoint an arbitrator under a partnership deed provision. The petitioner filed the request after the Munsiff Court dismissed his application to reopen proceedings regarding the appointment due to defendant noncooperation. The court appointed a retired district judge as the arbitrator from a panel suggested by the first respondent.

What did the court decide?

The arbitration request is allowed. Sri. M. Rajendran Nair, Retired District Judge, is appointed as the arbitrator.

P.T.Mohan Babu Vs P.T.Chandra Babu — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932

¶4

AR.No. 42 of 2010()

¶5

-------------------

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2010 IN IA.899/09 IN

¶7

OS.26/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR ....................

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

-------------------

¶10

P.T.MOHAN BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM GARDENS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

¶12

SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

----------------------

¶15

1. P.T.CHANDRA BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶16

2. P.T.SUBHASH BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶17

3. P.T.ROY BABU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶18

4. P.T.PRAKASH BABU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.

¶19

R1 ADVS. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.MERIL MUTHU P.JOHN

¶20

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶23

A.R.No.42 OF 2010

¶24

Dated this the 21st day of February, 2011

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner and the respondents entered into
Annexure-1 partnership deed dated 1.4.1980 which

¶27

contains an arbitration clause at paragraph 14 as

¶28

under:

¶29

“14. Disputes arising among the
partners over this partnership during or on
termination of the partnership shall be
resolved by an arbitrator appointed in this
behalf by all partners and his decision
shall be final and binding.”

¶30

2. Disputes and differences arose between the

¶31

parties. The petitioner filed O.S.No.26 of 1997 on
the file of the court of the Munsiff of Punalur for
dissolution of partnership. As per Annexure-2
judgment, the parties were referred to arbitration.
The petitioner filed I.A.No.899 of 2009 in O.S.No.26

¶32

of 1997 to reopen the proceedings in the suit,
alleging that the respondents did not co-operate for

¶33

the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Munsiff's
Court dismissed that application by the order dated

¶34

A.R.No.42 OF 2010 2

¶35

17.2.2010.

¶36

3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has

¶37

filed this Arbitration Request under the

¶38

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint
an arbitrator.

¶39

4. The petitioner has submitted a panel of

¶40

arbitrators.

¶41

5. The learned counsel appearing for the first

¶42

respondent submitted that the first respondent has
no objection in appointing Sri.M.Rajendran Nair,
Retired District Judge as the Arbitrator,from among

¶43

the names of arbitrators suggested by the
petitioner. There is no appearance for respondents
2 to 4.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Arbitration Request is allowed. Sri.M.Rajendran
Nair, (Retired District Judge), Thonalloor Veedu,

¶45

A.R.No.42 OF 2010 3

¶46

Kamukumchery P.O, Piravanthoor is appointed as the
Arbitrator. The Arbitrator would be free to fix his

¶47

fee.

¶48

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

¶49

cms

P.T.Mohan Babu v. P.T.Chandra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Mohan Babu v. P.T.Chandra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivan @ Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs Kundur Sreebhagya

Thajudeen Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Social Welfare

M.B.Dinesh Vs State of Kerala

Devasia Vs Joseph

P.T.K.Reena Vs Pulichanandi Ismail