[email protected] Anil vs Bregosh V.G
2021 Latest Caselaw 15027 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
                             AR NO. 12 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              [email protected] ANIL, AGED 53 YEARS
              S/O.BHASKARAN, CHAITHRAM BAKERY, PARAVOOR KAVALA,
              ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 108.

              BY ADVS.
              V.A.SHAJI
              SHRI.S.A.SHAKUR NAVAZ
              SMT.S.DHANYA


RESPONDENTS:

     1        BREGOSH V.G., MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.CARION BILTA
              ASSOCIATES, RESIDING AT 4/312, EDACHERIPARAMBIL,
              ALAGAPPANAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 302.

     2        CARION BILTA ASSOCIATES, NO.100 KHB COLONY,
              ABOVE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KORAMANGALA, 5TH BLOCK,
              BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 095.


     THIS     ARBITRATION   REQUEST   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 AR 12/21
                                          2



                               JUDGMENT

This Arbitration Request, impelled by the

petitioner under the provisions of Section 11(6)

of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,

alleges that there are disputes between the

petitioner and the respondents with respect to the

covenants and stipulations in Annexure A1

agreement; and that same provides for resolution

of disputes only through the mechanism of

arbitration.

2. I have heard Sri.V.A.Shaji - learned

counsel for the petitioner, but there is no

appearance for the respondents even though they

have been validly served.

3. The files show that notice from this Court

to the 1st respondent - who is shown to be the

Managing Director of the 2nd respondent - has been

served; while the notice to the 2nd respondent has

been completed through e-mail. However, neither of AR 12/21

the respondents are present in person or

represented through counsel; inferentially guiding

me to the impression that they have no objection

to the request of the petitioner for appointment

of an Arbitrator.

4. I have examined Annexure A1, which is

stated to be the agreement between the parties and

Sri.V.A.Shaji asserts that it was entered into by

them with full volition. The Clause which

sanctions arbitration between the parties, in the

case of disputes, is available in the agreement

which reads as under:

Resolution of Disputes: Any dispute arising out of and touching the terms of this agreement shall be attempted to be resolved first by reference to mediation and if not so settled, by reference to ARBITRATION as per the applicable laws from time to time.

5. I see from the pleadings that petitioner

had addressed Annexure A5 letter to the

respondents requesting them either to accede to

the objections or to consent for appointment of an AR 12/21

Arbitrator. However, the respondents appear to

have issued Annexure A6 reply acceding to

arbitration, but disagreeing with the name

suggested by the petitioner.

6. In the afore circumstances, I am of the

view that it will be justified for this Court to

appoint an Arbitrator in terms of Section 11(6) of

the Act.

In summation:

(a) I nominate Smt.Meena John, Flat 2C, AC

M'Lord, AC City, Mathai Manjooran Road, Near High

Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi - 682 018, as

the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and resolve the

disputes and differences between the parties to

this case arising from Annexure A1 agreement.

(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 her under

Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the AR 12/21

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(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.

(d) The fees of the Arbitrator shall be

governed by the Fourth schedule to the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(e) In order to enable the Arbitrator to

commence the proceedings without delay, I direct

the parties to mark appearance before her at 11

a.m. On 01.09.2021. Since the respondents are

remaining ex parte in this proceedings, the

learned Arbitrator shall notify them of this date,

or a future date, appropriately.

Sd/-

RR                                              DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                        JUDGE
 AR 12/21


                  APPENDIX OF AR 12/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE:

ANNEXURE A1        TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
                   29/10/2018.

ANNEXURE A2        TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/12/2020

ISSUED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 15/12/2020 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 22/12/2020 SEND BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DATED 5/1/2021 SENT BY THE APPLICANT COUNSEL TO THE RESPONDENT COUNSEL.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 26/1/2021 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT COUNSEL.