Partly allowed

Gopuran Associates v. Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022AR/29/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam admitted an Arbitration Request filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The court nominated a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from agreements executed between the 1st applicant and the respondents, while noting that the scope of joinder for other applicants and specific counter-claims were to be decided by the arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

A sole arbitrator was nominated; proceedings commenced on 09.04.2022; registry directed to furnish disclosure statement; fees governed by Fourth Schedule.

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

1 M/S.GOPURAN ASSOCIATES TC 23/1099, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT CO-ORDINATING CONTRACTOR, JOY G.O @ JOY GOPURAM, TC 23/1099, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036

¶8

2 JOY G.O @ JOY GOPURAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O. G.M.OUSEPH, TC 23/1099, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036

¶9

3 LUCY PETER, AGED 51 YEARS W/O. JOY G.O., TC 23/1099, VALIYASALA, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036

¶10

BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

SMT.REMYA RAVINDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 M/S.ASSET HOMES PVT. LTD. HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT XV/246C, 'ASSET CENTRALE', NH BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR JUNCTION, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶14

2 M/S. ASSETS INDIA INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD., HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT XV/246C, 'ASSET CENTRALE', NH BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR JUNCTION, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶15

3 V.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. LATE T.V.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, DIRECTOR, M/S. ASSET HOMES PVT.LTD., XV/246C, 'ASSET CENTRALE', NH BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR JUNCTION, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304,

¶16

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

4 V.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE T.V.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, DIRECTOR, M/S. ASSETS INDIA INFRA PROJECTS PVT.LTD., XV/246C, 'ASSET CENTRALE', NH BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR JUNCTION, MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304,

¶19

BY ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶20

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2022, THE

¶21

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The applicants say that they had entered into Annexures A1 and A2 agreements with respondents 1 and 2 and that even though they had complied with all their contractual obligations thereunder satisfactorily, the respondents failed to do so, thus constraining them to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶26

2 . Smt.Remya Ravindran - learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that since both Annexures A1 and A2 provide that all disputes between the parties touching upon its terms and relating thereto, must be adjudicated and resolved only through the mechanism of Arbitration, her clients issued Annexure A7 to the respondents requesting them to either comply with their demands, or that an Arbitrator be agreed to be appointed, so that the disputes can then be resolved. She alleges that, however, the respondents chose not even to respond to Annexure A7, thus leaving her clients no other option but to approach this Court through this Arbitration Request.

¶27

3 . In response, Sri.Peeyus A. Kottam - learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that, as is luculent from Annexures A1 and A2, both the agreements were entered into by his

¶28

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

clients only with the 1 st applicant. He submitted that, therefore, going by the same, the disputes can only be resolved between his clients and the 1st applicant and that the other two applicants do not obtain any role to play, except in their position as the proprietor or such other of the said entity. He then pointed that the applicants are, in fact, attempting to assail a notice issued by his clients asking them to repay an amount of Rs.37,10,241/-, along with interest and that hence his clients also have certain allegations against them, which may be permitted to be impelled before the learned Arbitrator as a counter claim, if this Court is inclined to allow this Arbitration Request.

¶31

4 . I have examined Annexures A1 and A2 and, prima facie, it appears that they were entered into by the 1 st and 2 nd respondents with the 1 st applicant. Whether the 2 nd applicant is the proprietor of the 1 st applicant and whether the 3 rd applicant is in any manner involved in its operations, are matters that need not be considered by this Court at this stage, since am of the view that it will be better left to the learned Arbitrator to decide, if and when any such objections are raised during the Arbitration proceedings.

¶32

5 . That said, since Annexures A1 and A2 provide – as is also expressly admitted by both sides – that all disputes relating to and touching upon its terms are to be adjudicated and resolved only through

¶33

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

the process of Arbitration, I am certain that this Court is now enjoined to allow this Arbitration Request.

¶36

Resultantly, I order this Arbitration Request in the following manner:

¶37

(a) I nominate Smt.Prabha R. Menon, Prabharamam, C-3, HIG Apartments, HIG Avenue, 1st cross, Gandhi Nagar, Kochi – 682 020, (Mobile – 9847121161, e-mail: [email protected]), as the sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case arising from Annexure A2 agreement.

¶38

(b) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator within a period of one week from today and to obtain a Statement of Disclosure from her under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶39

(c) Once the Disclosure Statement is obtained from the learned Arbitrator, the Registry shall release the certified copy of this order, with a copy of the said statement appended to it, retaining the original of the same on the files of this case.

¶40

(d) The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶41

(e) In order to enable the Arbitrator to commence the proceedings without delay, I direct the parties to mark appearance before her at

¶42

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

11.00 am on 09.04.2022.

¶45

Needless to say, since this Court has not entered into the merits of the contentions or contra-contentions of the rival parties, all of them are left open to be pursued before the learned Arbitrator, as per law.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

AR NO. 29 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF AR 29/2022

¶52

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶53

Annexure A1	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND APPLICANT AND M/S. ASSET HOMES PVT.LTD., DATED 23.07.2014
Annexure A2	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF CONTRACT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND APPLICANT AND M/S. ASSET INDIA INFRA PROJECTS PVT LTD., DATED 23.07.2014
Annexure A3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.05.2020
Annexure A4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.05.2019
Annexure A5	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE 2ND APPLICANT FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 37,10,241/- DATED 25.07.2020
Annexure A6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO ANNEXURE A5 DEMAND OF THE 2ND APPLICANT
Annexure A7	TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION NOTICE OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 19.04.2021

Gopuran Associates v. Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopuran Associates v. Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

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

Prabhakaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Girish T.C., Vs Union of India

Mr. Koshy Zacharia Karuvelil Vs Mr. Vishnu Raj

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Mary W/O Vavachan Vs District Collector, Idukki