Allowed

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited(“Rjil”) v. Ajikumar

Kerala HC12 Apr 2023AR/208/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this arbitration request, the High Court of Kerala appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between Reliance JioInfocomm Limited and Ajikumar arising from a terminated lease agreement. The court also issued directions for the disclosure statement and fee sharing.

What did the court decide?

Nomination of Adv. Sri.M.K.S. Menon as sole arbitrator; direction for disclosure statement; direction for appearance before arbitrator on 25.05.2023.

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited(“Rjil”) Vs Ajikumar — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

AR NO. 208 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

BY ADVS.
P.SATHISAN
DONA AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

AJIKUMAR
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVAN, AJI BHAVAN, PATHIYOOR, ERUVA (PO),
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690572
BY ADVS.
SAMEER S.
GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN S.(K/000607/2022)

¶11

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

AR NO. 208 OF 2022 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner Company asserts that they had entered into Annexure A1 – Lease Agreement with the respondent, 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).

¶15

The afore submissions of Smt.Dona Augustine – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.S.Sameer – 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 produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that if this Court is inclined to

¶16

AR NO. 208 OF 2022 3

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

(a) I nominate Adv. Sri.M.K.S. Menon, Menon & Associates, Dd tex World, 3^rd Floor, Market Road, Kochi, Ernakulam, Ph:9810240999, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case arising from Annexure A1 agreement.

¶22

AR NO. 208 OF 2022 4

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

MC

¶32

AR NO. 208 OF 2022 5

¶33

APPENDIX OF AR 208/2022

¶34

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LEASE
DEED DATED 20.01.2014
Annexure A2TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TERMINATION NOTICE
DATED 20.12.2016
Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
11.12.2019
Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.10.2022

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited(“Rjil”) v. Ajikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited(“Rjil”) v. Ajikumar

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

M/S Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited Vs Sunny Abraham

Shijo Koshy Vs the Geologist

Muhammed Enoli Vs Shailaja

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited (“Rjil”) Vs Karthikeyan

S.Padmanabhapillai Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Sheen Vs Superintendant of Police, Kollam