Disposed

M/S.Srk Shelters Private Limited v. Alka Ventures Private Limited

Kerala HC15 Nov 2019OP(C)/2946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a challenge to an interim stay granted by the court below. The High Court directed the lower court to dispose of a review application filed by the petitioners within fifteen days, ensuring they had an opportunity to justify their non-appearance before the stay was imposed under the Arbitration Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed lower court to dispose of petitioner's review application for the lower court order within fifteen days; to consider all contentions under law.

M/S.Srk Shelters Private Limited Vs Alka Ventures Private Limited — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

OP(C).No.2946 OF 2019

¶6

IA NO.670/18 IN IN AOP 33/2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - V,EKM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 M/S.SRK SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT REGD. OFFICE 50//502, CORPORATE PLAZA, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, PUNE 411 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, MR. K.M.A. RASHEED ALIAS MALIK.

¶9

2 MR. K.M.A. RASHEED ALAIS MALIK,S/O. LATE POCKER ABUBAKAR KIZHAKKUM, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1002, BUILDING A PRIDE PANORAMA,S.N.103, BHAGIRATWADI, SENAPATT BAPAT ROAD, NEAR CHATURSHRINGI TEMPLE,SHIVAJI NAGAR,PUNE 411 016.

¶10

3 M/S. S.R.K. GOLD EARTH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,REGD. OFFICE AT 95/1 DODDATHOGURU VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA 560 100, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, MR.K.M.A. RASHEED ALIAS MALIK.

¶11

4 M/S. SAIRUNG DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVTE LIMITED,REGD. OFFICE AT 501/502, CORPORATE PLAZA, SENAPATI BAPAT ROAD, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 411 016, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.K.M.A. RASHEED ALIAS MALIK. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 ALKA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MEENA, TC 36/1690 (1) SUBHASH NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. TRIVANDRUM 695 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, MR. K.G. AJAYACHANRAN NAIR.

¶14

2 MR. K.G. AJAYACHANDRAN NAIR,AGED 57 YEARS S/O. SRI GOPALAKARISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MEENA TC 36/1690 (1) SUBASH NAGAR, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. TRIVANDRUM 695 008.

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Case No. OP(C) 2946/19

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Against the award passed in A.R. No.99 of 2016,

¶20

appeal was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the respondents as Arb.(O.P.) No.33 of 2018. Along with the Arb. (O.P.), I.A. No.670 of 2018 was filed. The court below allowed the said application and granted stay as per Ext.P4 order on the reason that there was no representation for the petitioners herein. It was stated in Ext.P4 that the petitioners did not file any objection.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before passing Ext.P4 order, no notice was given to the petitioners. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the court below

¶22

Case No. OP(C) 2946/19

¶23

-3-

¶24

did not consider the provisions of Section 36(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before passing Ext.P4 order. In the said circumstances, the petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of this court about Ext.P3 application filed by the respondents herein before the court below for advancing the case. The said application was filed by the respondents on6+ 5.10.2019. It appears from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of Ext.P3 that the respondents were not aware of Ext.P4 order even on 5.10.2019 even though the said order was passed by the court below on 7.6.2019.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶27

Case No. OP(C) 2946/19

¶28

-4-

¶29

submitted that the petitioners did not file any application before the court below for reviewing Ext.P4 order. In view of the above, it is directed that if the petitioners file any application before the court below within fifteen days for reviewing Ext.P4 order, the court below shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within ten days from the date of filing of the application. Needless to state that the court below shall consider all the contentions of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶30

This Original Petition stands disposed of as above.

¶31

sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶32

dl/

¶33

Case No. OP(C) 2946/19

¶34

-5-

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ARB(OP) 33/18 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF EP 775/18 FILED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ADVANCE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON 5.10.2019

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 670/18 IN AOP 33/18 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, ERNAKULAM

¶41

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL

M/S.Srk Shelters Private Limited v. Alka Ventures Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Srk Shelters Private Limited v. Alka Ventures 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

Reeshma Ramachandran, Vs Sunil K.

Aji Vs Shiji

Dayarachankadi Andru Vs Raoof Dhayarachankandi

K.v.Sayyid Hashim Vs P.P.Muhammed Yasin

Anu Rose Mathew Vs Pratheesh Jaison

K.T.Samuel, Vs Satheesan