Allowed

Varkey Kuriakose v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC26 Jul 2012AR/3/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed applications for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, based on a clause in the Patta. The court relied on a prior decision holding that the right to appoint an arbitrator could not be denied, despite pending appeals at the Apex Court against that prior decision.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; District Collector, Ernakulam, designated as arbitrator, directed to initiate arbitration proceedings.

Varkey Kuriakose Vs Tahsildar — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2012/4TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

AR.No. 3 of 2012 ()

¶6

APPLICANT :

¶7

VARKEY KURIAKOSE AVICKAL HIOUSE, VAZHAKULAM, KOVANKARA MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶9

OPPOSITE PARTY :

¶10

THE TAHSILDHAR, ALUVA.

¶11

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUNITHA VINOD

¶12

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2012, ALONG WITH AR NO. 40/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

...2/-

¶15

AR.No. 3 of 2012 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶18

ANNEXURE - 1 : COPY OF THE PATTA DATED 25/5/1970 AS ALSO THE FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ACCOMPANYING THE SAME.

¶19

ANNEXURE - 2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2010.

¶20

ANNEXURE - 3 : COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 08.01.2011

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶26

A.R.Nos.3/2012 and 40/2011

¶27

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2012

¶28

ORDER

¶29

These Applications have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short 'the Act') for the appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes and differences between the applicants and the respondents.

¶30

Annexure-A1 in these cases are the pattas issued to the applicants. Clause 14 thereof provide that if any dispute or difference arises between the Government or their officers on the one part and the grantee or his/her successors in interest on the other part, as to the rights, duties or liabilities of either party in respect of any matter or thing relating to or arising out of the grant or the construction or the meaning of all or any of the conditions of the grant, the said dispute or difference shall be referred for settlement by an Arbitration to the District Collector.

¶31

A.R.3/12 & 40/11

¶32

¶33

It appears that on the allegations that the applicants have violated the terms of assignment, the proceedings were initiated by the first respondent and the applicants filed replies disputing the allegations against them and seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of clause 14 mentioned above. However, appointment was not made within the time specified in the Act. It is there upon that these Applications were filed.

¶34

A counter has been filed by the respondents in A.R.40/2011 where, on merits they dispute the entitlement of the applicants to get the Arbitrator appointed.

¶35

It is seen that the contentions in these Applications and in the counter have already been considered by this Court in the judgment in Joemon Joseph v. Tahsildar (2011 (2) KLT 1007) and the issue has already been decided against the respondents. Accordingly, an Arbitrator was appointed in that case. The fact that the issue is

¶36

A.R.3/12 & 40/11

¶37

¶38

covered by that judgment is admitted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. However, it is stated that the respondents have initiated steps to challenge the aforesaid judgment in an Appeal before the Apex Court.

¶39

As at present, the issue is concluded by the judgment referred to above and the right of the applicants to get the Arbitrator appointed, cannot be denied. Therefore these applications are allowed and the District Collector, Ernakulam, the Designated Arbitrator, shall initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act and conclude the same, as expeditiously as possible.

¶40

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

mrcs

¶42

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Varkey Kuriakose v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varkey Kuriakose v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Thampi Vs Wireless T.T.Info Services Ltd.

Sofia Anitha James P. Vs State of Kerala

Y.M.Mohammed Babu Vs Secretary to Govt.

G.Vijayanath Vs the Kottayam Municipality

Raju.D. Vs Pattazhi Grama Panchayath

Samuel Kutty Vs Vallikunnam Grama Panchayath