Disposed

M.C Joseph v. Indian Oil Corporation

Kerala HC15 Jun 2012AR/13/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act regarding disputes over operation loss, the petitioner addressed notices to respondents instead of the designated arbitrator. The court observed that while the respondents were justified in their objection, they acknowledged willingness to arbitrate under Clause 16. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to apply to the Director (Marketing); ordered the Director to initiate arbitration or appoint an arbitrator without delay.

M.C Joseph Vs Indian Oil Corporation — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/25TH JYAISHTA 1934S

¶5

AR.No. 13 of 2012 ()

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

M.C JOSEN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.K.C.OOMMEN & SON, 1OC DEALER, TIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.ABDUL RAZZAK

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD (MD), KEALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER,

¶12

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD (MD), KEALA STATE OFFICE , PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 36.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD (MD), KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 36.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶15

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMV

¶17

AR.No. 13 of 2012 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EX	HIBITS	:
ANNEXURE A1.	:	COPY OF THE CONTRACT.
ANNEXURE A2.	:	COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 23.11.2010.
ANNEXURE A3.	:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.11.11.11 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A4.	:	COPY OF CERTIFICATE FOR DELIVERY OF ANNEXURE A3.
ANNEXURE A5.	:	COPY OF THAT WRITTEN REQUEST DATED 26.12.2011 FOR ARBITRATION.
ANNEXURE A6.	:	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR DELIVERY OF ANNEXURE A5.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ Arbitration Request No.13 OF 2012

¶25

=======================

¶26

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2012

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶29

Petitioner submits that he is a transporting contractor of the 1^st respondent. It appears that he has raised certain disputes relating to operation loss and issued Annexures A3 and A5 notices to the 2^nd respondent invoking the arbitration clause of Annexure A1 agreement between the parties and sought the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the aforesaid dispute. There was no response to the notices and therefore he made this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶30

The submission made on behalf of the respondents is that if a person wants to invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement, it is for him to move the designated arbitrator himself viz., the Director (Marketing). It is stated that the petitioner has not so far moved the designated Arbitrator to invoke the powers of this Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and

¶31

:2 :

¶32

AR No.13/12

¶33

Conciliation Act. However, it is submitted that if such a representation is made to the designated Arbitrator, the designated Arbitrator shall initiate arbitration proceedings or will appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated in Clause 16 of Annexure A1.

¶34

The request made by the petitioner for arbitration are all addressed to the 2^nd respondent and not to the designated Arbitrator. In that sense, the respondents are justified in their contention.

¶35

Be that as it may, since respondents also say that they are willing to initiate arbitration proceedings in terms of Clause 16 on the petitioner moving the designated Arbitrator, I dispose of this arbitration request with the following directions:-

¶36

(1) That it will be open to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the Director (Marketing) at the Company's Registered Office at Mumbai.

¶37

(2) If such a request is made by the petitioner, the Director (Marketing) shall either initiate arbitration by himself or

¶38

AR No.13/12

¶39

:3 :

¶40

will appoint an Arbitrator as contemplated in Clause 16 of Annexure A1 agreement, which shall be done without any delay in the matter.

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

M.C Joseph v. Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C Joseph v. Indian Oil Corporation

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

Narayanan Vs Kaladharan

Sita Roy Vs Thomas John Mambra

M/S. Venus Fertilizers Vs Unnikrishnan

Sri. Siraj Vs Secretary, Pathanamthitta Municipality

K.K.Sasidharan Vs the Excise Commissioner

Radha Devi Vs State of Kerala