Allowed

M/S. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala HC4 Feb 2020AR/12/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court at Ernakulam allowed the application and nominated a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between M/s. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. James J. Muricken as Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties under the Annexure-A1 agreement dated 15.06.2009.

M/S. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

AR.NO.12 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/APPLICANT :

¶7

M/S. X PRINT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT XXXII/285/D, MOOLAYIL TOWERS, NEAR ST. MARY'S YACOBITE CHURCH, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, GEORGEKUTTY KURIAN, AGED 61 YARS, S/O. T. M. KURIAN, RESIDING AT CHANDRATHIL HOUSE, KARIMAKKADU, PIPE LINE ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI - 682021.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOMY GEORGE SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN SHRI.RISHAB S.

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VELLAYITTAMBALAM JUNCTION BUS STOP, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 47, MULAMKADAKAM, KOLLAM - 691012, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶11

SRI MATHEWS K PHILIP, STANDING COUNSEL

¶12

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

AR.No.12 OF 2020

ORDER

The above captioned application is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act 3 of 2016’ for short) seeking for an appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties herein, pursuant to Annexure-A1 agreement.

¶17

According to the applicant, they entered into an agreement with the respondent on 15.6.2009 and a supplementary agreement on 27.8.2012 by which, they were authorised to carry out the jobs relating to heavy duty laser printing solutions for printing telephone bills and also for post printing operation of the respondent. Dispute arose between the parties. On the strength of clause 14 of Annexure-A1 agreement, the dispute was referred to a Sole Arbitrator. An award was passed by the Arbitrator on 25.01.2015 rejecting the claims raised by the applicant. The award was challenged by the applicant by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. By Annexure-A3 order in O.P. (Arb) No.1233 of 2015, the learned District Judge set aside the award.

¶18

Immediately thereafter, the applicant approached the respondent and sought for appointing a new Arbitrator. When no action was taken, this petition is filed.

¶19

AR.No.12 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

Sri. Mathews K Philip, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent has no objection in appointing an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes in terms of the agreement.

¶22

I have considered the submissions advanced. In that view of

¶23

the matter, this application will stand allowed. The following order is passed:

¶24

(a) I nominate Sri. James J. Muricken, Muricken Puthenpurayil, Muttuchira P.O., Kottayam-686 613, Retired District Judge as Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute and differences between the parties arising from Annexure-A1 agreement dated 15.06.2009.

¶25

(b) A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocate of the applicant within a period of one week from today. A copy of the order shall also be forwarded to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Registry in the address shown in the list of panel of Arbitrators.

¶26

(c) The Arbitrator is requested to forward his statement of disclosure under Section 11(8) r/w. Section 12(1) of the Act 3 of 2016. The disclosure statement shall be placed before this Court for confirmation of the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Registry shall retain a copy of the original.

¶27

(d) The Arbitrator’s fees shall be governed by the Kerala

¶28

AR.No.12 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

High Court (Fee Payable to Arbitrators) Rules, 2017. Both parties agree that the arbitration costs and fees shall be shared equally.

¶31

This Arbitration Request is allowed as above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE

AR.No.12 OF 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶40

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15TH JUNE 2009 BETWEEN BSNL,KOLLAM AND M/S.X PRINT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED.

¶41

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 25.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR WITH REGARD TO THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE X PRINT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND BSNL, KOLLAM.

¶42

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2019 IN O.P.(ARB) NO.1233/2015 OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶43

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19.8.2019 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

M/S. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. X Print Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharath Sanchar Nigam 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

Kerala Automobiles Ltd., Vs the Asst.Provident Fund Commissioner

Sahil Vs the District Executive Officer

The Assistant Engineer Vs Krishna Kumar

P.Sivasankara Mannadiar Vs State of Kerala

V. Shereef Vs District Labour Officer

Saroj.C. Vs the District Collector