Petitioner challenged unilateral arbitrator appointment and award. Court examined arbitration clause designating seat as Chennai, India, ruling Section 11 application non-maintainable in Kerala despite TRF Ltd. precedent.
Arbitration Request dismissed as non-maintainable in the High Court of Kerala.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
AR NO. 90 OF 2022
PETITIONER
RIJO.P.GEORGE
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O GEORGE,PARADIYIL
HOUSE,KOOMBARA,KOODARANJI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN – 673604
BY ADVS.
G.HARIHARAN
PRAVEEN.H.
K.S.SMITHA
V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR
ANJALY T.A
RESPONDENT
M/S DAIMLER FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD
(AUTOBAHN TRUCKING CORPORATION PVT LTD)CALICUT
BYPASS ROAD,RAMANATTUKARA,KOZHIKODE.REPRESENTED
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN – 673632
BY ADV SREEDEV U
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
A.R. No.90 of 2022
2
O R D E R
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2022
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by the respondent and the award passed by the said Arbitrator. The petitioner seeks appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
A.R. No.90 of 2022
3
4. Clause 85 of Annexure R1 agreement reads as
follows:
“85. Dispute Resolution All claims and disputes arising under or relating to this Loan Agreement are to be settled by binding arbitration in the State of Tamil Nadu, specifically Chennai or another location desired by the Lender. The arbitration shall be conducted on a confidential basis and shall be subject to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of India. Any decision or award as a result of any such arbitration proceeding shall be in writing and shall provide an explanation for all conclusions of law and fact and shall include the assessment of costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees. Any such arbitration shall be conducted by single arbitrator appointed by the Lender. The arbitration proceeds shall include a written record of the arbitration hearing. The parties reserve the right to object to any individual who shall be employed by or affiliated with a competing organization or entity. An award of arbitration may be confirmed in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
A.R. No.90 of 2022 4
Arbitrator by the respondent is bad in law in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd (supra) . However, as the seat of Arbitration is specifically decided to be beyond the territorial limits of Kerala, an Arbitration Request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable before this Court.
The Arbitration Request is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
smm
A.R. No.90 of 2022
5
APPENDIX OF AR 90/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure1TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF GOODS VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KL-57S-5124.
Annexure2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER
OF ICICI BANK LTD. VS. PRAKASH KAUR
REPORTED IN 2007 (2) SCC 711.
Annexure3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
15.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER
Annexure4TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER
EVIDENCING DISPATCH OF THE ANNEXURE-III
NOTICE
Annexure5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ON 24.03.2020.
Annexure6TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SENT BY THE
PETITIONER ON 02.03.2022 OBJECTING THE
DISPOSSESSION NOTICE AND SUGGESTING THE
APPOINTMENT OF SOLE ARBITRATOR FOR
SOLVING THE DISPUTE
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1Copy of the Loan agreement between the
Petitioner and respondent dated 30-07-
2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court of Kerala has jurisdiction to entertain the arbitration request under Section 11 when the seat of arbitration is Chennai.
Whether the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator by the respondent makes the arbitration clause void under the relevant apex court precedent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects LtdReferred¶17
[(2017) 8 SCC 377] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rijo P George
M/s Daimler Financial Services India Pvt Ltd
N. Nagaresan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court