Dismissed

M.R.Ramakrishnan v. the Ministry of Railways

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016WA/45/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the Single Judge's direction to deposit amounts for anticipated arbitral proceedings regarding railway stall license fees. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit direction was equitable and disputes over policy identity and undertakings fell within the wide ambit of the arbitration clause.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed; the Single Judge's order to deposit amounts is upheld; the matter shall continue through arbitral proceedings.

M.R.Ramakrishnan Vs the Ministry of Railways — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 45 of 2016 () IN WP(C).30876/2007

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30876/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-11-2015

¶7

APPELLANT(S):/PETITIONER

¶8

M.R.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

LICENCEE, COMBINED FRUIT AND TEA STALL, WADAKKANCHERY RAILWAY STATION, WADAKKANCHERY P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶11

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.HARI

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENTS

¶13

1. THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI-100 001.

¶15

2. THE RAILWAY BOARD RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 100 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI P.O., TAMIL NADU.

¶17

4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶18

WA45/16

¶19

5. SAMUEL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶20

6. MURALI CATERING INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY STATION ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

¶21

7. P.V.SIVADASAN CHIEF CATERING INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM RAILWAY JUNCTION ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

¶22

8. JOBBY CATERING INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM RAILWAY JUNCTION ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

¶23

9. SATHEESAN ACCOUNTS OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RAILWAY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶24

R1 TO R4 BY SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

jg-28/1

¶27

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶28

.................................................................... W.A.No.45 of 2016

¶29

.................................................................... Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2016.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶32

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who is the writ petitioner, and the learned standing counsel for the Railways.

¶33

2.The appellant is a licensee who is authorised to run a combined fruit and tea stall in a railway station. The matter essentially relates to disputes on questions regarding rate that would apply to determine the licence fee. In an earlier round of litigation, according to the appellant, there was a plea by the railway establishment which amounts to an undertaking, insofar as the Policy of 2000 is concerned. As noted by the learned single Judge, there is an arbitration clause in the contract between the parties. Essentially therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in keeping hands-off thereby enabling the petitioner/appellant to invoke the arbitration proceedings. The

¶34

WA45/16

¶35

-2-

¶36

learned counsel for the appellant very persuasively says that the direction of the learned single Judge to deposit the amounts in anticipation of the arbitral proceedings was uncalled for. We cannot uphold that plea. We say this because there are disputes between the parties as to whether it is the 2000 Policy or the 2005 Policy, and if there is one so, that would apply and govern the licence terms. The question whether there was an undertaking which bound the Railways contrary to or in supersession of the terms of the Policy is again a disputed fact which can also be a subject matter of arbitration. The arbitral agreement is not a restrictive covenant in as much as all disputes that arise for decision as between the parties and referable to the licence terms, including the identity of the policy and the effect of any undertaking by any party to the contract, would fall within the trappings of arbitrarial disputes which can go for arbitration. This wholesome approach in dealing with arbitration matters has come to stay in jurisdictions which are required to exclude from adjudication, when an arbitral clause is shown to exist, unless of

¶37

WA45/16

¶38

-3-

¶39

course, the provision for arbitration is a restricted and an extremely limited provision. In the case in hand, the arbitral clause is wide enough to take in all disputes. The equitable consideration relating to deposits has also been appropriately worked out by the learned single Judge. In this factual matrix, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment by holding it as illegal or vitiated by any factual infirmity. The writ appeal, therefore, fails. This matter is, accordingly, dismissed clarifying that all disputes relating to any of the questions indicated above could be raised by the appellant through the arbitral proceedings.

¶40

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶41

(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)

¶42

jg-11/1

M.R.Ramakrishnan v. the Ministry of Railways

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Ramakrishnan v. the Ministry of Railways

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

Padmaja B Vs Antony Chacko

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.George Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Noorudeen Vs a.B.M.Civil Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Tdb, Rep. by Executive Engineer, Trivandrum Vs Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit

M.J.Xavy Vs the High Court of Kerala