Allowed

Selvarajan v. Puravankara Projects Ltd.

Kerala HC19 Jul 2011AR/52/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for appointment of an arbitrator filed under Arbitration Request No. 52 of 2010 was allowed. The respondent failed to file objections despite an adjournment for doing so. An ex-parte appointment order was passed appointing a retired district judge as the sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. K. Ramachandran (Retired District Judge) as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes.

Selvarajan Vs Puravankara Projects Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

AR.No. 52 of 2010

¶6

APPLICANT:

¶7

¶8

MR.SELVARAJAN.N,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA NADAR, AGED 54,NO.21 B,GREEN HILLS, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682030

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYAN SRI.A.V.VAMANAKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES

¶11

¶12

PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD, BANGALOOR 560 042.

¶13

DIRECTOR,PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, G-261,PANAMPILLAY AVENUE,COCHIN 682 036.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH

¶15

SRI.JOSHUA H.SAMUEL

¶16

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Arbitration Request NO. 52 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2011

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Though the Arbitration Request was being adjourned from 21.2.2011 onwards for filing objections, the respondents have not filed any objections.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is the following: The petitioner entered into Annexure A1 agreement dated 30.12.2008 with the first respondent for construction of a flat for the petitioner. The petitioner and the first respondent, on the same date, entered into Annexure A2 agreement for sale of the undivided right in favour of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions. Disputes arose between the parties. As per Annexure A3 letter dated 21.11.2009 issued by the first respondent, a sum of 8,18,535/- out of the total payment of 20,75,135/- made by the petitioner to the first respondent was forfeited by the first respondent. It was mentioned in Annexure A3 that after such forfeiture and adjustment of liquidated damages, an amount of `10,87,937/- would be due to be paid to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

Arbitration Request NO.52 of 2010

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

submitted that even the sum of 10,87,937/- was not paid to the petitioner. According to the first respondent, as revealed in Annexure A3 letter, a sum of 20,75,135/- was paid towards the total sum of `54,56,900/- to be paid to the first respondent. According to the first respondent, there was default on the part of the petitioner as stated in Annexure A3 letter. According to the petitioner, the default occurred due to the default on the part of the first respondent.

¶26

The petitioner sent Annexure A5 notice dated 17.8.2010 invoking the arbitration clause in Annexure A1 and A2 agreements and requesting the respondents to communicate the consent/decision of the nomination of an arbitrator as made in Annexure A5. It is stated that no reply was sent by the respondents to Annexure A5 notice.

¶27

Annexures A1 and A2 agreements contain the following

¶28

arbitration clauses:

¶29

“(30) In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the Parties hereto in regard to any matter relating to or connected with this Agreement or the construction of the Apartment, the same shall be referred to Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act and the decision of the

¶30

Arbitration Request NO.52 of 2010

¶31

:: 3 ::

¶32

Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties. The venue of Arbitration shall be Ernakulam/Cochin. Arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in English language. Only the Courts in Ernakulam shall have jurisdiction in this regard.”

¶33

“(25) The parties agree that in case of any dispute arising in respect of this agreement, the matter shall only be referred to arbitration of an Arbitrator (and not to any other forum) under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as may be amended from time to time. The decision of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be binding on the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be carried-out in English language. The arbitration proceedings shall be held at Ernakulam and the Courts in Ernakulam shall alone have jurisdiction in this regard.”

¶34

In view of the arbitration clause contained in Annexures A1 and A2 agreements and since disputes arose between the parties in relation to the subject matter of the agreements, it is necessary to resolve the disputes by appointing an arbitrator. The petitioner has suggested the name of Sri.K.Ramachandran as Arbitrator, in Annexure A5 notice. There was no reply to the said notice.

¶35

In the facts and circumstances, the Arbitration Request is allowed.

¶36

Arbitration Request NO.52 of 2010

¶37

:: 4 ::

¶38

Advocate Sri.K.Ramachandran (Retired District Judge), “Govind”, Neduvelil Lane, Ravipuram Road, Ernakulam, is appointed as the

¶39

Arbitrator. The Arbitrator is free to fix the arbitration fee.

¶40

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶41

ahz/

Selvarajan v. Puravankara Projects Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvarajan v. Puravankara Projects 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

Roopan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala & Another

Jokuttan @ Scaria A.M. and Othres Vs the Station House Officer, Kelakam Polic

Biju Vs State of Kerala