Allowed

Rosmi Lukose v. Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019AR/27/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the arbitration request filed by applicants against M/S.Oceanus Dwelling Pvt. Ltd. for the appointment of a Provisional Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising under a Joint Development Agreement involving a claim of Rs.1,63,500/- based on Clause 43 of the agreement and Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration request allowed; Sri.M.V.George appointed provisionally as Arbitrator; Registry directed to obtain disclosure under Section 11(8) and place matter for confirmation.

Rosmi Lukose Vs Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

AR.No.27 OF 2019

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

1 ROSMI LUKOSE W/O. ANIL K. MATHEW, ROSANIYA, CHERUVALLI LANE, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017 REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANIL K. MATHEW, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. CHANDY MATHEW, MANALADI MURI, PALLIKOOTTUMMA, RAMANKARI VILLAGE, PIN 689595, NOW RESIDING AT ROSANIYA, CHERUVALLI LANE, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017

¶8

2 ANIL K. MATHEW AGED 46 YEARS S/O. CHANDY MATHEW, ROSANIYA CHERUVALLI LANE, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695017

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶10

OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶11

M/S.OCEANUS DWELLING PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.297, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 7TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560076, KARNATAKA STATE, AND ALSO HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, SAN ROCK TOWERS, NH-47, SREEKARYAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, P. K. THOMAS. 695017

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ R1 BY ADV. SHRI.SUMEEN S.

¶13

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

AR.No.27 OF 2019

¶15

¶16

Arbitration Request No.27 of 2019

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The applicants who own a property have entered into a development agreement with the opposite party. Annexure A is the Joint Development Agreement entered into between the parties. It is stated that dispute arose between the parties in connection with the said agreement and the applicants have raised a claim against the opposite party for Rs.1,63,500/-. Annexure C is the said claim. In terms of Annexure C, the applicants have called upon the opposite party to nominate an Arbitrator acceptable to them if the claim is disputed, for resolution of the dispute provided for in the Joint Development Agreement. It is stated that the opposite party has neither settled the claim nor agreed for resolution of the dispute by recourse to arbitration. Hence this arbitration request for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

¶19

2 . Clause 43 of the Joint Development Agreement reads

¶20

thus:

¶21

“In the event of any dispute or differences between the parties hereto, the same shall be settled amicably through mutual discussions and conciliations, after giving due notices to the parties at the addresses given herein above by Registered Post A.D. In spite of the aforesaid if it is not possible to reach a solution in respect of mutual rights and obligations, such dispute/difference shall be

¶22

¶23

AR.No.27 OF 2019

¶24

referred to arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision of the Arbitrators shall be final and binding on both the parties. ”

¶25

In the light of the aforesaid clause, the dispute raised by the applicants, as referred to in Annexure C notice is one to be resolved by recourse to arbitration.

¶26

In the circumstances, the arbitration request is allowed and Sri.M.V.George, Retired District Judge, Vellaramkunnil, BSNRA - K11, Bhagat Singh Nagar, Mukkolackal P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 43 is appointed provisionally as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. The registry is directed to obtain disclosure statement under Section 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the Arbitrator and place the matter before the court for confirmation of the appointment of the Arbitrator. The registry shall retain the original of the disclosure statement and append a copy of the same to the order.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

AR.No.27 OF 2019

APPENDIX

APPLICANTS' EXHIBITS:

¶35

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 27.07.2014 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN APPLICANTS AND OPPOSITE PARTY ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.ZAE/BA/383A/14 DATED 06.02.2015 ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.01.2019 FROM APPLICANTS' COUNSEL TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 06.02.2019 FROM THE OPPOSITE PARTY TO THE APPLICANTS' COUNSEL

¶36

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Rosmi Lukose v. Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosmi Lukose v. Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited

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

Ramlath, Vs the District Police Chief, Kozhikode

M/S.Freeze Fast Technoligies Vs the State of Kerala

Maitheenkunju P.S. Vs Kerala State Housing Board

K.a.Majeed, Vs the Superintending Engineer

D.Dinesh Babu, Vs a.P.Sreekumar

Gip Boards Vs Chief Conservator of Forests