Dismissed

M/S. Ravenbeck Securities (India) Ltd. v. the General Manager

Kerala HC8 Jan 2018AR/102/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that an arbitration request filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the present court. Relying on the agreement's clause specifying Mumbai as the place of arbitration and the Supreme Court judgment in Indus Mobile Distribution, the court directed the closure of the request.

What did the court decide?

The arbitration request was closed; questions of law and facts left open for the appropriate court.

M/S. Ravenbeck Securities (India) Ltd. Vs the General Manager — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939 AR.No. 102 of 2017

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

M/S. RAVENBECK SECURITIES (INDIA) LTD., 'RAVEN BECK HOUSE', CHETTICHIRA, SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, VYTTILA P.O, KOCHI.682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M. RAVEENDRAN.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.SATHEESH SRI.PAUL ANTONY MANIAMKOT

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDO PACIFIC HOTEL LTD., PANORAMIC GROUP, 4TH FLOOR, AMAN CHAMBER, OPP. NEW PASSPORT OFFICE, VEERSARKAR ROAD, MUMBAI.400 025, MAHARASHTRA.

¶10

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

Msd.

¶12

AR.No. 102 of 2017

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶15

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THAT SECURITY SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED 03.12.2015.

¶16

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 14.08.2017 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

¶17

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE DATED 17.08.2017.

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶24

A.R. No.102 of 2017

¶25

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2018

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioner has entered into Annexure A1 agreement for rendering security services to the respondent, in which clause 11 is incorporated, whereby parties have agreed to resolve the dispute by resorting to arbitration, which read thus:

¶28

“11. ARBITRATION

¶29

In the event of any dispute between the parties to this agreement, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its performance (including the validity of this Agreement) shall, as far as possible, be settled amicably in between the Parties. However, if any dispute arises during the course of this agreement, the dispute shall be referred to a sole Arbitrator appointed by THE COMPANY at its sole discretion. The decision/award of such an Arbitrator shall be as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and amendments thereto from time to time and the same shall be final and binding on both the parties the arbitration proceedings shall be

¶30

AR No. 102 of 2017

¶31

¶32

conducted in English language and place of Arbitration shall be Mumbai.”

¶33

It is evident from clause 11 that, the place of arbitration shall be in Mumbai. Therefore, in my considered opinion, any application on the basis of Annexure A1 is also to be submitted within the jurisdiction of the courts at Mumbai, especially in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Indus Mobile Distribution (P) Ltd. v. Datawind Innovations (P) Ltd. [2017(2) KLT 665(SC)]. Therefore, the request is not maintainable.

¶34

Leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to move before appropriate court for seeking suitable reliefs, this arbitration request is closed. The questions of law and facts raised in the arbitration request are left open to be agitated before the appropriate court.

¶35

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶36

smv 8.1.2018

M/S. Ravenbeck Securities (India) Ltd. v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ravenbeck Securities (India) Ltd. v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kavya Vijay (Minor) Vs State of Kerala

Devika Suresh Vs General Convener, Kerala State School Kalolsavam

Anna Jomy Vs State Level School Kalotsavam 2017-18 Committee

Tresa Antony Vs the State of Kerala

A.Shajahan Vs Hemachandran

Adv. Peter M. Paul Vs Mr. P. Sureshkumar