Arbitration request for appointment of an arbitrator to settle disputes between parties to a partnership arrangement. No objection existed to arbitration itself; only the petitioner's suggested arbitrator was disputed. The court nominated Advocate A.K.Haridas as sole arbitrator and directed disclosure formalities.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945
AR NO. 15 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
FATHIMA K
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O LATE MUSTAFA K.P.,
'KONDASSAN PARAMBIL HOUSE',
PAZHAYANGADI, KONDOTTY P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 673 638
BY ADV E.NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT:
ANVAR .T,
S/O IBRAHIM, 'ANFIRA MANZIL',
THACHARAKKAL PARAMBA, KOVOOR,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE,, PIN – 673 008
BY ADVS.
VINAYAK G MENON
ARUN CHAND(K/000860/2016)
AAMIR SOHRAB M. M.(K/001256/2019)
BHARAT VIJAY P.(K/000976/2018)
MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON(K/739/2020)
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON
01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AR NO. 15 OF 2024
2
T.R.RAVI.J
A.R No.15 of 2024
Dated this the 01st day of March, 2024
ORDER
The arbitration request has been filed to appoint an
Arbitrator for settlement of disputes among parties. The
respondent has no objection for appointing an Arbitrator.
The petitioner has suggested name of a counsel to be the
Arbitrator. The respondent does not dispute the arbitration agreement but has reservations regarding the name suggested by the petitioner. There is no serious dispute regarding the existence of the Arbitration Clause and with reference to arbitration.
In the above circumstances, the following orders are passed:
(a) I nominate Advocate Sri.A.K.Haridas, K/654/1997, Mayookham, Manakkapparambu Road, Edappally
AR NO. 15 OF 2024
3
P.O as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the disputes and differences between the parties to this case.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
sn
AR NO. 15 OF 2024
4
APPENDIX OF AR 15/2024
PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A |
TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 21-11-2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER'SLATE HUSBAND AND THE RESPONDENT |
|---|---|
Annexure B |
TRUE COPY OF THE RECONSTITUTED PARTNERSHIPDEED DATED 29-06-2019 |
Annexure C |
TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 13-10-2021ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THERESPONDENT |
Annexure D |
TRUE COPY OF THE A.O.P. NO.123/23 DATED 04-08-23 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT,KOZHIKODE - V |
Annexure E |
TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.02/23 IN A.O.P.NO.123/23 DATED 4.8.2023 ON THE FILE OF THEDISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE - V |
Annexure F |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04-08-23 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THEHEALTH OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION |
Annexure G |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07-08-23 IN IANO.02/23 IN A.O.P. NO.123/23 ON THE FILE OFTHE DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE - V |
Annexure H |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-08-23 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THESECRETARY OF THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION |
Annexure I |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-08-23CANCELLING THE D AND O LICENSE |
Annexure J |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28-10-23 ISSUEDBY THE LAWYER OF THE PETITIONER TO THERESPONDENT |
Annexure K |
TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE |
Annexure L |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02-01-24 ISSUEDBY THE RESPONDENT |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an arbitrator should be appointed to resolve disputes between the parties under the arbitration agreement?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Fathima K
Anvar .T
T.R.Ravi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court