Remanded

M/S Bismi Cashew Company v. M/S Vittal Impex

Kerala HC16 Jan 2024OP(C)/2354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside the arbitrator's order holding the arbitration agreement void due to insufficient stamp duty. Relying on a later Seven-Judge Bench decision, the court remitted the matter to the arbitrator to proceed.

What did the court decide?

The Ex.P2 order in both Original Petitions is set aside; the matter is remitted to the arbitrator to proceed in accordance with law.

M/S Bismi Cashew Company Vs M/S Vittal Impex — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

OP(C) NO. 2354 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/CLAIMANT:

¶7

M/S BISMI CASHEW COMPANY
AGED 44 YEARS
MANGAD P.O,KILIKOLLOOR ,KOLLAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY,
SHRI. SHIYAS HUSSAIN AGED 44, S/O AHAMED HUSSAIN,
TANAL, KARICODU ,KILIKOLLOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN – 691015
BY ADV
ARUN BABU

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1M/S VITTAL IMPEX
NEAR LFGHS SCHOOL,HOSDURG, KANHANGAD 671315
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT GAJANANA CHAMBERS,
NEAR SAI MANDIR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD -
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.GANESH KAMATH,
PIN – 671315
2GANESH KAMATH
MANAGING PARTNER M/S VITTAL IMPEX,
NEAR LFGHS SCHOOL, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, PIN – 671315
BY ADV
JAWAHAR JOSE

¶10

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2024,
ALONG WITH OP(C).2106/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶12

-2-

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶14

PRESENT

¶15

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN

¶16

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 2106 OF 2023

¶17

PETITIONER/CLAIMANT:

¶18

M/S CROWN CASHEW IMPEX PVT LTD
MANGAD P.O,KILIKOLLOOR ,KOLLAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SHRI. SHIYAS HUSSAIN, AGED 44,
S/O AHAMED HUSSAIN, TANAL,
KARICODU ,KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM, PIN – 691015

¶19

BY ADV
ARUN BABU

¶20

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNETS:

¶21

1M/S VITTAL IMPEX,
NEAR LFGHS SCHOOL,HOSDURG,
KANHANGAD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT GAJANANA
CHAMBERS ,NEAR SAI MANDIR, HOSDURG,
KANHANGAD - 671315
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR.GANESH KAMATH,

¶22

2GANESH KAMATH
MANAGING PARTNER M/S VITTAL IMPEX,
NEAR LFGHS SCHOOL,HOSDURG, KANHANGAD,
PIN – 671315

¶23

BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE

¶24

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶25

-3-

¶26

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.01.2024, ALONG WITH OP(C).2354/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶28

-4-

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

[OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023]

¶31

In both these Original Petitions, orders of the arbitrator, exhibited as P2, are under challenge, which closed the proceedings, holding that the arbitration is not maintainable for the reason that the arbitration agreement is not duly stamped. The learned arbitrator relied upon a Five Judges Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court to hold so.

¶32

Now, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as also the respondents, would submit that the said Five Judges Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court has been overruled by a Seven Judges Bench, which held that the arbitration agreement is not per se void, for the reason that it is insufficiently stamped; instead the deficiency in the stamp duty can be cured.

¶33

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶34

-5-

¶35

In view of the common submission made by the counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, Ext.P2 order in both these Original Petitions will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the arbitrator for proceeding with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE

¶38

vv

¶39

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶40

-6-

¶41

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2106/2023

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

`EXHIBIT P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT A`
	`CONTRACT BEARING NO VI/HS/07/19-20` `DATED 02.10.2019`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `13/07/2023 IN OP 1/2022 BY THE SOLE` `ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `13/07/2023 IN IA 14/2023 IN OP 1/2022` `BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACT` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED`
	`18/03/2022 IN OP 1/2022 BEFORE THE` `SOLE ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT`
	`DATED 25-05-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE`
	`RESPONDENT IN AR 71/2020 BEFORE THE` `SOLE ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT 6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF IA 14/2023, DATED 2-` `06-2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OP` `1/2022 BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR`

¶44

OP(C) Nos.2354/2023, 2106/2023

¶45

-7-

¶46

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2354/2023

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

`EXHIBITP 1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT A`
	`CONTRACT BEARING NO VI/HS/06/19-20` `DATED 02.10.2019`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `13/07/2023 IN OP 2/2022 BY THE SOLE` `ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED` `13/07/2023 IN IA 13/2023 IN OP 2/2022` `BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF` `FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ,`
	`DATED 18/03/2022 BEFORE THE SOLE` `ARBITRATOR`
`EXHIBITP 5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN` `STATEMENT DATED 25-05-2022 SUBMITTED`
	`BY THE RESPONDENT IN AR 72/2020`
	`BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR IS` `PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF IA 13/2023, DATED 2-` `06-2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OP`
	`2/2022 BEFORE THE SOLE ARBITRATOR`

M/S Bismi Cashew Company v. M/S Vittal Impex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bismi Cashew Company v. M/S Vittal Impex

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

P.A. Gangadharan Vs Joy John

Gopakumar P.K. Vs Arjun Amaravathi Chits (P) LTD.NO.30

Gopakumar P.K. Vs M/S Arjun Amaravathi Chits(P) LTD.NO.30

Deepthy.S Vs Anil Raj P.R

M/S Crown Cashew Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Vittal Impex

K.S.Joseph Vs State Bank of India