Allowed

M/S Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited v. Sunny Abraham

Kerala HC11 Apr 2023AR/194/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an arbitration request between Reliance Jiofibocomm Limited and Sunny Abraham arising from a terminated lease agreement. The court appointed a sole arbitrator and directed the sharing of costs equally, commencing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of M.K.S. Menon as Sole Arbitrator; Parties directed to share fees equally; Appearance fixed for 11 am on 25.05.2023.

M/S Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited Vs Sunny Abraham — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

AR NO. 194 OF 2022

¶6

APPLICANTS:

¶7

M/S RELIANCE JIOINFOCOMM LIMITED (“RJIL”) OFFICE -101, SAFFRON, NR. CENTRE POINT, PANCHWATI 5 RASTA, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD - 380006, GUJARAT, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL, ARULKUMAR PUTHUKKUDI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4A, CELESTIA, FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, PIN - 682020 BY ADVS. P.SATHISAN DONA AUGUSTINE

¶8

OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶9

SUNNY ABRAHAM AGED 58 YEARS, S/O ABRAHAM, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, PRIYADARSHINI, VAIKOM(P.O) PADINJATTUMCHERRY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686141 BY ADVS. DINEESH MENON I L.RAJESH NARAYAN(K/372/2003)

¶10

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

A.R.No.194 of 2022

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶14

========================= A.R.No.194 of 2022

¶15

========================== Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner Company asserts that they had entered into Annexure A1 – Lease Agreement with the respondent / opposite party, but that on account of certain disputes, same was terminated through Annexure A2. They say that, however, termination of the agreement has led to further disputes arising between the parties, including outstanding sums towards rent and such other; and that, therefore, that they have addressed Annexure A3 letter, directing him either to settle the same, or to agree with the appointment of an Arbitrator. They say that the respondent, however, has neither caused any reply to be issued to Annexure A3, nor agreed to the nomination of the Arbitrator as per the terms of Annexure A1. They thus pray that this Court appoint a suitable Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act' for short).

¶18

The afore submissions of Smt.Dona Augustine – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.I.Dinesh Menon – learned counsel for the respondent, saying that, contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, a reply was caused to be issued by his client to Annexure A3, but conceded that same has not been

¶19

A.R.No.194 of 2022

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that if this Court is inclined to appoint a suitable Arbitrator, then all his client's contentions, including which has been impelled in the aforesaid notice, may be allowed to be projected, so that the learned Arbitrator can decide the same also, within the ambit of the mechanism of Arbitration as provided under Annexure A1.

¶22

I have examined Annexure A1 and it is without doubt that Clause 6 thereof obligates the parties to resolve all disputes arising from, or touching upon or relating to its terms, through the process of Arbitration under the 'Act'. Since this is without dispute, I have no doubt that this Arbitration Request is deserving of being allowed.

¶23

Needless to specifically say, while the Arbitrator proceeds with the process, he shall deal with every contention of the rival parties, including the arbitrability of disputes and such other, within the ambit of the 'Act' as per law.

¶24

In the afore circumstances, this Arbitration Request is allowed in the following manner:

¶25

(a) I nominate Adv. Sri.M.K.S. Menon, Menon & Associates, Dd tex World, 3^rd Floor, Market Road, Kochi, Ernakulam, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case arising from Annexure A1 agreement.

¶26

(b) The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this

¶27

A.R.No.194 of 2022

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

order to the learned Arbitrator, within a period of two weeks from today and to obtain a Statement of Disclosure from him under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

(e) The parties to this case are ad idem that they will share the arbitration costs and fees equally and it is so recorded.

¶33

(f) In order to enable the Arbitrator to commence the proceedings without delay, I direct the parties to mark appearance before him at 11 am on 25.05.2023.

¶34

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

anm

A.R.No.194 of 2022

: 5 :

APPENDIX OF AR 194/2022

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LEASE DEED NO.2309/2014 DATED 27.10.2014 BETWEEN APPLICANT AND OPPOSITE PARTY. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OPPOSITE PARTY DATED 23.12.2019. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF ARBITRATION DATED 17.09.2022 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

M/S Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited v. Sunny Abraham

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited v. Sunny Abraham

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

Shijo Koshy Vs the Geologist

Muhammed Enoli Vs Shailaja

Devasia E.K., Vs the Permanent Lok Adalath

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited(“Rjil”) Vs Ajikumar

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited (“Rjil”) Vs Karthikeyan

S.Padmanabhapillai Vs State of Kerala