Allowed

Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Prefab Limited Regional – in Charge (South Zone)

Kerala HC20 Dec 2023AR/208/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed an arbitration request filed by the Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd against Hindustan Prefab Limited. The court nominated a sole arbitrator, directed issuance of a disclosure statement, and readied parties for appearance, noting the respondent's ex parte absence.

What did the court decide?

allowed the arbitration request, nominated Sri. Bhaskaran V. as sole arbitrator, and directed appearance before him on 01.02.2024.

Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 AR NO. 208 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD., 'SENTINEL, 2ND FLOOR,
T.C.NO.27 - 588 (7) AND (8) VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN – 695035

¶6

BY ADVS.
M.SASINDRAN
S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

HINDUSTAN PREFAB LIMITED REGIONAL - IN CHARGE
(SOUTH ZONE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (CIVIL),
PIN – 695001

¶9

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

AR 208/23

O R D E R

The petitioner – which is stated to be a Corporation

¶14

established by the Government of Kerala for the purpose of promoting ‘Backward Classes’ in the State – says that they have entered into Annexures AI and AII Agreements with the respondent, but that disputes have arisen between them with respect to its terms and their internecine contractual obligations, particularly because the

¶15

work being conducted by the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory.

¶16

The petitioner explains that, however, since Clause 15 of

¶17

the said Agreement mandates that all such disputes be adjudicated and resolved only through the mechanism of arbitration, they issued Annexure AIII notice to the respondent, requiring them to accede to their claims, intimating them specifically that if they did not do so,

¶18

they will initiate appropriate action for redressal of their grievances and recovery of amounts, which can only be done through a procedure under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) . They say that,

¶19

¶20

AR 208/23

¶21

however, the respondent has refused to accede to their requests in Annexure AIII; thus constraining them to approach this Court through this Arbitration Request.

¶22

3 . The files reveal that even though notice from this Court has been validly served on the respondent, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; thus inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations made in this Arbitration Request.

¶23

4 . I have examined Annexures AI and AII Agreements and as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.M.Sasindran, Clause 15 thereof mandates that the parties must first try to resolve all differences and disputes between them through ‘consultation’; and in the event of failure of the same, to refer them to a sole Arbitrator. It is also mandated therein that each party will pay half the remuneration of the Arbitrator and that the proceedings shall be conducted in terms of the ‘Act’.

¶24

5 . When the afore remains uncontested, this Court is certain

¶25

that it is enjoined to allow this Arbitration Request.

AR 208/23

In summation:

(a) I nominate Sri.Bhaskaran V., ‘Bhamee’, Kolachery

¶30

Paramaba, P.O. Kolachery, Kannur, Pin – 670 601, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case arising from Annexures AI and AII Agreement.

¶31

(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.

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

(e) In order to enable the Arbitrator to commence the

¶36

proceedings without delay, I direct the parties to mark appearance

¶37

AR 208/23

¶38

¶39

before him at 11 A.M on 01.02.2024.

¶40

(g) Since the respondents are remaining ex parte in this

¶41

proceedings, the learned Arbitrator shall notify them of this date, or

¶42

a future date, appropriately.

¶43

This Arbitration Request is thus allowed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RR

¶46

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

AR 208/23

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF AR 208/2023

¶51

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure AIA TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 22-08-
2017 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT
Annexure AIIA TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 19-05-
2021 ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND
THE RESPONDENT
Annexure AIIIA TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 28-
06-2023 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT
Annexure AIII(a)A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE

Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Prefab Limited Regional – in Charge (South Zone)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. v. Hindustan Prefab Limited Regional – in Charge (South Zone)

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

Bhadora Industries Pvt. Limited Represented by Directors, Anil Bhadora and Pradeep Bhadora Represe Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Bhadora Industries Pvt. Limited Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Shyam Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Anna Sara George Vs State of Kerala Rep by District Collector Ernakulam

V.Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Koya and Company Construction Limited Vs Kerala Water Authority