Disposed

Nalini Harikumar v. Trivandrum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. @ Kerala Constructions

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016AR/50/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration request filed under a joint venture agreement, the High Court appointed a retired District Judge as arbitrator after the originally designated arbitrator expressed inability to act, to resolve a payment dispute between applicants and the opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Sri.M.Rajendran Nair, retired District Judge, was appointed as Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

Nalini Harikumar Vs Trivandrum Builders & Developers… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

AR.No. 50 of 2015 ()

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

1. NALINI HARIKUMAR D/O. LATE GIRIJA NAIR, FLAT NO. 5A, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. S.K.NAIR, S/O. LATE DR.U.S.NAIR, FLAT NO. 5A, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶8

2. SARASWATHY D/O. LATE GIRIJA NAIR,FLAT NO. 5A, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. S.K.NAIR, S/O. LATE DR.U.S.NAIR, FLAT NO. 5A, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶9

3. PARVATHY D/O. GIRIJA NAIR, FLAT NO. 5A, SREE DHANYA CASTLE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶11

OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶12

TRIVANDRUM BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS (P) LTD. @ KERALA CONSTRUCTIONS

¶13

TC NO.6/123, 'HARISREE', PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARISH S. THAMPI.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶15

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AR.No. 50 of 2015 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A:	TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE IST APPLICANT DATED 28.12.2012
ANNEXURE B:	TRUE COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT DATED 9.8.2012
ANNEXURE C:	COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT DATED 5.4.2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE OPPOSITE PARTY AND APPLICANTS
ANNEXURE D:	COPY OF THE JOINT VENTURE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 20.9.2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE OPPOSITE PARTY AND APPLICANTS
ANNEXURE E:	TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 26.6.2015 BETWEEN OPPOSITE PARTY AND APPLICANTS
ANNEXURE F:	COPY OF LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 18.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY
ANNEXYRE G:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.10.2015 FROM THE NAMED ARBITRATOR TO THE APPLICANTS
ANNEXURE H:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANTS' LAWYER TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY.
ANNEXURE I:	COPY OF REPLY LETTER DTED 7.12.2015 FROM THE LAWYER OF OPPOSITE PARTY TO THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER

¶20

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

A.R No.50 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Arbitration Request is filed by petitioners seeking to resolve the dispute which arose by and between the petitioners and the respondent, based on Annexure-E agreement.

¶29

Material facts for the disposal of the arbitration request are as follows:-

¶30

Annexure-E is a joint venture agreement entered into by and between the parties and a dispute arose with respect to the payment of amount by the opposite party to the petitioners. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction for appointment of an Arbitrator, this arbitration request is filed.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioners.

¶32

Respondent has not filed any counter affidavit

¶33

A.R No.50 of 2015

¶34

¶35

with respect to the dispute pointed out by the petitioners in this request. Apparently, as per clause 8 of Annexure-E, disputes by and between parties are to be resolved by resorting to alternative dispute mechanism provided thereunder, which reads thus:-

¶36

“8. In the event of any dispute or differences in respect of the Agreement or any incidental matter, the same shall be referred to Sri.A. Abdul Kharim, Advocate, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram whose decision in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall be final and binding on the Parties.”

¶37

On an evaluation of clause 8 it is seen that a named Arbitrator was appointed by the parties. However, when disputes arose and notified to enter on reference, a communication was issued by the named Arbitrator as per Annexure-G expressing his inability to act as an Arbitrator in the dispute by and between the parties. On a perusal of pleadings in the arbitration request and the tenor of contentions put forth by the respondent I am satisfied that there exists dispute between petitioners and the respondent

¶38

A.R No.50 of 2015

¶39

¶40

and therefore, the same has to be resolved by resorting to the mechanism provided in Annexure-E agreement. Therefore, necessarily this Court has to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

¶41

Taking into account the respective submission, in order to resolve the dispute Sri.M.Rajendran Nair, retired District Judge, Thonnalloor, TC 18/812(5), Aramada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 032 is appointed as Arbitrator. Arbitrator shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the respective parties.

¶42

Arbitration request is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶45

dlk/4/10/

Nalini Harikumar v. Trivandrum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. @ Kerala Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini Harikumar v. Trivandrum Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. @ Kerala Constructions

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

Sister Marykutty Kannattu Vs Pappinissery Grama Panchayath

Kunju Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Jimmy K.C. Vs the Taluk Land Board

S.Dathan Vs Mr.Antony Chacko

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

R.Rajesh Kumar Vs the Managing Director, Registered Office Bhadratha