Allowed

G.K.Granites v. the Joint General Manager

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022AR/159/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala appointed a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for a dispute between G.K. Granites and Simplex Infrastructure Limited arising from a supply agreement. The court directed the registry to communicate the order and obtain the arbitrator's disclosure statement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Sri. S. Prasanth as sole arbitrator; directions for service of order, disclosure statement, and determination of fees.

G.K.Granites Vs the Joint General Manager — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
AR NO. 159 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

G.K.GRANITES
KIZHAKAMBALAM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, REPRERSENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER, SRI. GEORGE ANTONY, PIN – 683562

¶7

BY ADVS.
N.JAMES KOSHY
T.SANJAY
MIDHUN R.

¶8

RESPONDENT

¶9

THE JOINT GENERAL MANAGER

¶10

SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, COCHIN SHIPYARD
PROJECT, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI, PIN – 682003

¶11

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶12

02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

A.R No.159 of 2022

O R D E R

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2022

¶17

The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of granite, G-Sand and other granite aggregates, entered into Annexure-2 agreement with the respondent. The agreement was for the supply of crushed stone aggregates and G-Sand.

¶18

The petitioner states that the petitioner supplied crushed stones, but the respondent failed in paying the amounts. Clause 11 of Annexure-2 provides that the disputes arising out of the agreement and consequent supply shall be resolved by mutually agreed Arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and principal place of such arbitration will be at Ernakulam.

¶19

In view of the Arbitration Clause, the petitioner sent Annexure-7 arbitration notice on 23.02.2022. The respondent did not respond to Annexure-7 notice, contends the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

¶20

A.R No.159 of 2022

¶21

¶22

seeking to appoint an Arbitrator.

¶23

Though notice was served on the respondent and the counsel representing the respondent appeared on 18.11.2022 and sought time to file Vakalath, the counsel was not present on the next posting date which was on 25.11.2022. Today

¶24

also, the respondent has not appeared through counsel.

¶25

In view of the pleadings in the Arbitration Request, it is evident that Clause 11 of Annexure-2 agreement contemplates resolution of disputes between the petitioner and the respondent through arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Annexure-2 would also indicate that the seat of Arbitration should be Ernakulam. The petitioner has sent statutory notice to the respondent as is evidenced from Annexure-7. The respondent has not sent any reply to Annexure-7.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that an Arbitrator shall be appointed as prayed for by the petitioner to resolve the disputes between the parties.

¶27

A.R No.159 of 2022

¶28

¶29

The Arbitration Request is therefore ordered as

¶30

follows:

¶31

(i) Sri.S.Prasanth, Advocate, Naduviladath, Punnackal, Elamakkara P.O., Cochin-26 is appointed as the sole Arbitrator, to arbitrate upon the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of Annexure-2.

¶32

(ii) The learned Arbitrator is at liberty to rule on his own jurisdiction, if the parties raise such a dispute.

¶33

(iii) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator within a period of ten days from today and to obtain a Statement of Disclosure from the learned Arbitrator as provided under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act.

¶34

(iv) Once the Disclosure Statement is obtained from the learned Arbitrator, the Registry shall issue the certified copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator, with a copy of the said statement appended to it, retaining the original of the same by this Court.

¶35

(v) The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act.

¶36

(vi) The learned Arbitrator shall decide the manner in which the fees and expenses of the arbitration proceeding has to be paid by the parties.

¶37

A.R No.159 of 2022

¶38

¶39

(vii) The parties will appear before the learned Arbitrator on such date and place as decided by the learned Arbitrator.

¶40

(viii) All contentions of the parties are left open to be raised before the learned Arbitrator.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

smm

A.R No.159 of 2022

APPENDIX OF AR 159/2022

¶47

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶48

`Annexure1`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `CERTIFICATE NO`	`E UDAYAM REGISTRATION` `UDAYAM-KL-020014662`
	`DATED 18.07.996`	`ISSUED BY THE MSME ,`
	`GOVERNMENT OF IN` `PETITIONER`	`DIA IN FAVOUR OF THE`
`Annexure2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `02.07.2018` `GK/3177/QUOTATION` `THE RESPONDENT`	`THE AGREEMENT DATED` `ACCEPTANCE` `NO.` `S BY THE PETITIONER TO`
`Annexure3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DUES PAYABLE TO` `RESPONDENT`	`STATEMENT OF ADMITTED` `THE PETITIONER BY THE`
`Annexure4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE`	`STATEMENT SHOWING THE`
	`DETAILS OF THE`	`AMOUNT DUE TO THE`
	`PARTITIONER FROM` `08.02.2022`	`THE RESPONDENT AS ON`
`Annexure5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `DATED 10.02.2022` `RESPONDENT`	`COMMUNICATION BY EMAIL` `SENT BY PETITIONER TO`
`Annexure6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO. 6724/2022 DAT`	`JUDGEMENT IN W.P. C` `ED 02.03.2022`
`Annexure7`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE NOTICE DATED`
	`23.02.2022 SENT` `ARBITRATION AND` `TO THE RESPONDENT`	`U/S 11 OF THE` `CONCILIATION ACT 1996` `BY THE PETITIONER.`

G.K.Granites v. the Joint General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.K.Granites v. the Joint General Manager

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

Fathima Shaniba Vs Bijumon

Sasidharan C. Vs State of Kerala

Somasekharan Nair Vs Nellikuzhy Grama Panchayat

Crosslite Infra Private Limited Vs Pravsha Projects Private Limited

Crystal Granites Limited Vs the Joint General Manager

Black Diamond Rock Products LLP Vs State of Kerala