Dismissed

M.M. Mani v. Fahad Fazil

Kerala HC12 Dec 2017AR/16/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) for a film production dispute governed by a pre-arbitration committee mechanism. The court noted the respondent failed to engage with the mechanism. A subsequent order dismissed the request based on a later procedural direction.

What did the court decide?

The application for appointment of an arbitrator was ultimately dismissed based on a subsequent order.

M.M. Mani Vs Fahad Fazil — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

AR.No. 16 of 2017 ()

¶6

APPLICANT:

¶7

M.M. MANI,AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,PROPRIETOR,M/S.SUNITHA PRODUCTIONS,VANCROSS JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶9

OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶10

MR.FAHAD FAZIL, S/O.FAZIL,CINE ACTOR,SEA VIEW WARD, NEAR,KANNANVARKEY BRIDGE,KANAL ROAD, ALAPPUZHA-688012, ALSO RESIDING AT FLAT NO.28B,CHOICE RESIDENCY, THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM-682301.

¶11

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

AR.No. 16 of 2017 ()

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶16

--------------------------------------------

¶17

ANNEXURE A:- TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 25.10.2012 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTY.

¶18

ANNEXURE B:- TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2012 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTY.

¶19

ANNEXURE C:- TRUE COPY OF LAWYER'S NOTICE DATED 16.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY.

¶20

ANNEXURE D:- TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 17.1.2017.

¶21

ANNEXURE E:- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶27

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

¶28

Arbitration Request No.16 of 2017

¶29

======================== Dated this the 12^th day of December 2017

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Applicant and the opposite party have entered into Annexure A agreement dated 25.10.2012 and Annexure B agreement dated 18.12.2012, concerning a film shooting. It is agreed by and between the parties under the agreement that, in the event of any dispute by and between the parties, the same shall be resolved by resorting to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided thereunder. Clause 21 of both agreements are similar in nature, which reads as follows:

¶32

“21. In case of any dispute between parties the same shall be referred to the Kerala Film Producers Association who will form a Committee consisting of 2 members from the artists Association, two members from FEFKA and the President and two office bearers for the Kerala Film Producers Association to resolve the issue. The matter will be referred to the Arbitration of the Kerala Film Chamber only if cannot be sorted out by the above committee.”

¶33

Apparently, dispute arose by and between the parties, consequent to which Annexure C notice was issued by the petitioner claiming certain amounts and requesting to settle the matter within 15 days or else to agree for appointment of the Arbitrator in

¶34

Arbitration Request No.16 2017 2

¶35

accordance with the terms of the agreement. It is also cautioned by the petitioner that in case the request made by the petitioner is declined, the petitioner would approach this Court for appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶36

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶37

Even though notice is served on the respondent, there is no appearance. It is evident from Clause 21 that, in the event of any dispute it will have to be resolved by resorting to the dispute resolution mechanism provided thereunder. However, in spite of the earnest efforts of the petitioner, petitioner did not agree for settling the dispute in accordance with the terms of the agreement. It was thereupon that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this request under Section 11 (6)of the Arbitration and Concillliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) ..

¶38

The scope of enquiry in a request is confined to sub section 6A of Section 11 of Act 1996. I am satisfied that there is a validly constituted Arbitration Clause. However, in spite of the efforts made by the petitioner, the respondent did not make any effort to appoint the Arbitrator in accordance with the terms entered into by and between the parties. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this request.

¶39

¶40

Arbitration Request No.16 2017

¶41

From the tenor and terms of the contentions raised in the arbitration request, it is evident that there is a serious dispute pendidng by and between the parties.

¶42

In that view of the matter, I appoint Smt.Sarika Devi, retired District Judge, Panthaplavil Poikayil (H), Keezhcherimel, Chengannur, Alappuzha as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator may enter on reference and proceed in accordance with law. Petitioner shall produce a disclosure statement as is provided under Section 11 (8) of Act, 1996. Registry shall issue certified copy of the order only after production of disclosure statement. The original shall be retained with the Registry and copy shall be appended along with the order.

¶43

Sd/

¶44

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

jm/

(contd at page No.4)

Arbitration Request No.16 2017

¶49

The order dated 12/12/2017 in A.R.No.16/2017 is recalled

¶50

and Arbitration Request is dismissed accordingly as per order dated 30/10/2018 in I.A.No.1/2018 in A.R.No.16/2017.

¶51

Sd/

¶52

Registrar (Judicial)

M.M. Mani v. Fahad Fazil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M. Mani v. Fahad Fazil

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

Ambily K.S Vs Dr. A.M. Ramanunny

C.a.Abbas Vs the Administrator, Kavaratti

Sharaf Arts and Science College, Padne Vs State of Kerala

Paroli Unneen Vs Sri.K.Abdul Nassar

Santhosh Cyriac Vs Sri. Hemachandran, IPS

Aisu Vs T.K.Sathish Kumar