Allowed

Dr.Thomas Mattathil v. the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Kerala HC22 Sept 2016AR/83/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an arbitration request by apartment purchasers alleging non-provision of amenities like electricity and lift by the builder/developer, the Court invoked Clause 16 of their agreement and appointed Justice R. Bhaskaran (Retd.) to adjudicate the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice R.Bhaskaran (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator to conduct proceedings.

Dr.Thomas Mattathil Vs the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/31ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

AR.No. 83 of 2016 ()

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

1. DR.THOMAS MATTATHIL

¶8

S/O. ULAHANNAN THOMAS, AGED 67 YEARS, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT GINSTERWEG 1, 29378 WITINGEN, 1, 29378 WITIGEN GERMANY; NOW RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR P.O., POOVARARANI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN- 686 578.

¶9

2. SMT.MARYKUTTY MATTATHIL, W/O. DR. THOMAS MATTATHIL, AGED 65 YEARS, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT GINSTERWEG 1, 29378 WITINGEN, 1, 29378 WITIGEN GERMANY; NOW RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, KIZHAPARAYAR P.O., POOVARARANI VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN- 686 578.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC

¶11

SMT.DONA AUGUSTINE

¶12

OPPOSITE PARTIES/RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE KERALA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY CHAMBER CORNER, SHANMUGAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031,. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

2. M/S CHERUPUSHPAM FILMS |(P) LTD, CHERUPUSHPAM BUILDING, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI- 682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.J JOSEPH, S/O. LATE ULAHANNAN JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KAKKATTIL HOUSE, VALLICHIRA KARA, PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN- 686 574.

¶15

R2 BY SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI R1 BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶16

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

AR.No. 83 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANEXURES- A: TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DATED 22.11.2013 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPLICANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS. RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

Arbitration Request. No.83 of 2016

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners entered into an agreement with

¶29

respondents for purchase of apartment No.13-A in the 13^th floor of Kerala Trade Centre. Even though the sale deeds were executed a couple of years back, so far the petitioners are unable to make any profitable use of the premises in view of the fact, the basic amenities like electricity, water, lift etc., are not provided to the building by the respondents, consequent to which, according to the petitioners, petitioners are put to serious loss and inconvenience. As per Annexure -A agreement a mechanism is provided under Clause 16 to settle the disputes, which reads thus:-

¶30

“16. That in the event of any dispute, whatsoever nature between the parties relating to this agreement in any manner whatsoever the same shall be decided by a sole Arbitrator (subject to the jurisdiction in Ernakulam, Kerala) to be nominated by the BUILDER in accordance with the rules of Arbitration of the Indian Council of Arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the award passed by the Arbitrator shall be final. The agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction.”

¶31

Arbitration Request. No.83 of 2016

¶32

¶33

It is in this background seeking to appoint an Arbitrator, this arbitration request is filed.

¶34

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

¶35

It is an admitted fact that, there is a dispute pending between petitioners and respondents with respect to the issues raised in the arbitration request. Therefore, it is a fit case where the provisions of the agreement can be invoked, in order to resolve the dispute. Clause 16 of the agreement provides that in the event of any dispute of whatsoever nature between the parties in relation to the agreement, the same can be resolved by resorting to Arbitration as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In similar circumstances this Court had occasion to consider the issue with respect to the very same respondents and has passed an order appointing an Arbitrator, a former Judge of this Court Justice R. Bhaskaran (Retd.). I think since the subject matter is relating to the

¶36

Arbitration Request. No.83 of 2016 3

¶37

very same issue, it is only appropriate that the very same Arbitrator is appointed to resolve the dispute by and between the petitioners and the respondents.

¶38

In the result Arbitration Request is allowed and Justice R.Bhaskaran (Retd.) is appointed as the Arbitrator. Arbitrator shall commence the proceedings after issuing notice to the respective parties.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶41

dlk/22/9/

Dr.Thomas Mattathil v. the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Thomas Mattathil v. the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry

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

Joann Sabu Vs the State of Kerala

Prasannakumari Vs Union of India

Geetha Vs the Employees State Insurance Corporation

K.N. Shibu Vs Antony Chacko

V.a.Gireesan Vs Sri.Antony Chacko

The Thirumullavaram Vanitha Welfare Co-Operative Bank Vs Deepa