Allowed

D.Dinesh Babu, v. a.P.Sreekumar

Kerala HC23 Oct 2019AR/48/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration request under a partnership deed dispute over Rs.8 lakhs regarding virgin coconut oil business, the court allowed the petition and provisionally appointed a retired judge as arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration request allowed; Sri. Asokan K. appointed as provisional Arbitrator; Registry directed to obtain disclosure statement under Section 11(8).

D.Dinesh Babu, Vs a.P.Sreekumar — 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.48 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

D.DINESH BABU, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.P.N.DAMODHARAN NAIR, DWARAKA HOUSE, IRINGAL P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 521.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

A.P.SREEKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.LATE S.PARAMESWARAN UNNITHAN, CHANDRAMANGALAM KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA - 690 534.

¶11

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.T.J.SEEMA

¶12

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

¶13

A.R. No.48 of 2019

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner and respondent entered into a partnership for conducting business of marketing of virgin coconut oil and other health care consumable products in the name and style, M/s.Somah Wellness. Annexure A1 is the partnership deed. Dispute arose between the parties in connection with the affairs of the partnership, and the petitioner has raised a claim against the respondent for Rs.8,05,018/-. Annexure A2 is the said claim. In terms of Annexure A2, the petitioner has called upon the respondent to take steps to resolve the dispute by recourse to arbitration has provided for in the partnership deed. It is stated that the opposite party has neither settled the claim nor taken steps for resolution of the dispute by recourse to arbitration. Hence this arbitration request for appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

¶16

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶17

3 . Clause 22 of the partnership deed dealing with the

¶18

arbitration clause reads thus:

¶19

“Any dispute or difference arising between the partners in connection with the subject matter of this Deed including disputes with the retired partners or legal representatives of the deceased partners shall be settled by Arbitration as provided in the Indian Arbitration

¶20

and Conciliation Act, 1996.”

¶21

In the light of the aforesaid clause, the dispute raised by the applicants as referred to in Annexure A2 notice is one which is to be resolved by recourse to arbitration.

¶22

In the circumstances, the arbitration request is allowed and Sri.Asokan K, Retired District Judge, Asoka Gardens, Thuvacode Post, Chemanchery, Kozhikode - 673 304 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

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF M/S.'SOMAH WELLNESS' DATED 16/1/2016. ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE REGISTERED LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 12/1/2019. ANNEXURE A3 COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LAWYER ON BEHALF ON THE RESPONDENT.

¶30

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

D.Dinesh Babu, v. a.P.Sreekumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Dinesh Babu, v. a.P.Sreekumar

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

Rosmi Lukose Vs Oceanus Dwelling Private Limited

Gip Boards Vs Chief Conservator of Forests