Allowed

Gokulan v. Vs Vinod G Pai

Kerala HC24 May 2023AR/226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the Arbitration Request filed by petitioners to appoint a sole arbitrator under Clause 20 of the partnership deed, despite the petition framing disputes within partner categories. The court directed the registry to communicate with the arbitrator to obtain a disclosure statement as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Costs were shared equally, and appearances

What did the court decide?

The Arbitration Request was allowed; the Registry shall communicate with the sole arbitrator appointed as Gavin P Nivas to obtain a disclosure statement under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1); pa

Gokulan v Vs Vinod G Pai — 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 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1GOKULAN V
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O LATE K.A VAMANA PAI, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD,
KOTTAYAM – 686 001 NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO 8A, WEXCO
MELFORD APARTMENT, PUTHANANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
2SOMALATHA P K
AGED 64 YEARS
W/O GOKULAN V, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM NOW
RESIDING AT FLAT NO 8A, WEXCO MELFORD APARTMNET,
PUTHANANGADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
BY ADV V.A.VINOD

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1VINOD G PAI
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O GOKULAN V, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686001
2SWETHA N BHAT
AGED 34 YEARS
W/O VINOD G. PAI, GOKUL NIVAS, UNION CLUB ROAD, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686001
BY ADVS.
LAKSHMI NARAYAN R.
R.RANJANIE(K/624/1993)

¶10

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This request, though styled as one filed

¶15

seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for

¶16

resolution of disputes between partners of a
firm, in fact, projects issues between parents

¶17

on one side and son and daughter-in-law on the
other.

¶18

in detail because, both sides are ad idem that,

¶19

as per Annexure A1, all their disputes be
referred for resolution and adjudication to a

¶20

sole Arbitrator. In fact, both the parties pray
before this Court that the terms of Clause 20 of
Annexure A1 be allowed to be acted upon and that
this Arbitration Request be ordered accordingly.

¶21

3.I have examined Clause 20 of Annexure

¶22

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶23

A1, which certainly obligates the parties to
have their disputes, with respect to the

¶24

partnership Firm, resolved and adjudicated under
the aegis of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.

¶25

In the afore circumstances, I am certain

¶26

that this Arbitration Request deserves to be
allowed.

¶27

Resultantly:

¶28

Nivas, Panachikappara, Poonjar, Kottayam, 686
581 as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and

¶29

resolve the disputes and differences between the
parties to this case, arising from Annexure 1

¶30

partnership deed.

¶31

(b) The Registry is directed to communicate

¶32

a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator

¶33

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

within a period of two weeks from today and to

¶36

obtain a Statement of Disclosure from him under

¶37

Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the

¶38

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶39

(c) Once the Disclosure Statement is
obtained from the learned Arbitrator, the

¶40

Registry shall release the certified copy of

¶41

this order, with a copy of the said statement
appended to it, retaining the original of the
same on the files of this case.

¶42

governed by the Fourth Schedule of the

¶43

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶44

 (e) The parties to this case are ad idem that

¶45

they will share the arbitration costs and fees

¶46

equally and it is so recorded.

¶47

 (f) In order to enable the Arbitrator to

¶48

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶49

commence the proceedings without delay, I direct

¶50

the parties to mark appearance before him at 11
AM on 26.06.2023.

¶51

This Arbitration Request is thus allowed .

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

SAS

¶56

AR NO. 226 OF 2022

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX OF AR 226/2022

¶59

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE1TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
1.4.2018
ANNEXURE2TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
APPLICANTS DATED 2.2.2021
ANNEXURE3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OPPOSITE
PARTY DATED 22.2.2021

Gokulan v. Vs Vinod G Pai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokulan v. Vs Vinod G Pai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar G., S/O.Late Gopinathan Nair Vs Sri.Sambasivan

George Cherian Vs Dr. Prakash Kumar B.

Deepumon C.S. Vs State of Kerala

Thasnimol T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Sanjay Menon Vs State of Kerala

Dr Joseph Michael Vs Ishita Roy IAS