Allowed

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited (“Rjil”) v. Karthikeyan

Kerala HC12 Apr 2023AR/209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for arbitration under a lease agreement dispute, the Kerala High Court allowed the request, nominated a sole arbitrator, and directed the registry to obtain a disclosure statement and record cost sharing.

What did the court decide?

Nominated Adv. Sri M.K.S. Menon as sole Arbitrator; directed Registry to obtain disclosure statement under Sec 11(8) and 12(1) Act; costs to be shared equally.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1945

¶4

AR NO. 209 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

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.

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.SATHISAN
DONA AUGUSTINE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KARTHIKEYAN AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, KULANGARAKATTUPARAMBU HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH, UDYOGMANDAL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501

¶10

2 TREESA

¶11

AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
KULANGARAKATTUPARAMBU HOUSE, ELOOR NORTH,
UDYOGMANDAL, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
SRI.S.SAMEER

¶12

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

¶13

AR NO. 209 OF 2022 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner Company asserts that they had entered into Annexure A1 – Lease Agreement with the respondents, but that on account of certain disputes, same was terminated through Annexures A2 and A2(a). 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 Annexures A3 and A3(a), directing them either to settle the same, or to agree with the appointment of an Arbitrator. They say that the respondents, however, has neither caused any reply to be issued to Annexures A3 and A3(a), 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).

¶16

The afore submissions of Smt.Dona Augustine – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.S.Sameer – learned counsel for the respondents, saying that, contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, a reply was caused to be issued by his clients to Annexures A3 and A3(a), but conceded that same has not been

¶17

AR NO. 209 OF 2022 3

¶18

produced on record. He, therefore, submitted that if this Court is inclined to appoint a suitable Arbitrator, then all his clients’ 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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

¶23

AR NO. 209 OF 2022 4

¶24

arising from Annexure A1 agreement.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

MC

¶33

AR NO. 209 OF 2022 5

¶34

APPENDIX OF AR 209/2022

¶35

`PETITIONER ANNEXU`	`RES`
`Annexure A1`	`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LEASE` `DEED DATED 01.02.2014`
`Annexure A2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TERMINATION CUM` `DEMAND NOTICES, ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL` `RECEIPTS DATED 06.08.2021`
`Annexure A2(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TERMINATION CUM` `DEMAND NOTICES, ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL` `RECEIPTS DATED 06.08.2021`
`Annexure A3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.10.2022` `ISSUED TO 1ST OPPOSITE PARTY`
`Annexure A3(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.10.2022` `ISSUED TO 2ND OPPOSITE PARTY`

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited (“Rjil”) v. Karthikeyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Jioinfocomm Limited (“Rjil”) v. Karthikeyan

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 Ajikumar

S.Padmanabhapillai Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Sheen Vs Superintendant of Police, Kollam