IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 737 of 2005()
1. JEBY @ JEBIN. K.J., S/O. JOY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARULDAS, RESIDING AT NANDILATH
... Respondent
2. SHAJI, S/O. BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble SHRI K. Justice J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)
Dated :19/11/2008
O R D E R
BARRISTER SRI.M.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
SRI.K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD.DISTRICT JUDGE)
================================
M.A.C.A.No.737 of 2005
===============================
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008
AWARD
This case was settled between the parties in the Adalat on
29.09.2008 and is posted today for passing final Award. The
following final Award is passed:
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit an additional
compensation of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only)
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, for
payment to the appellant within 60 days from the date of the
Award. Non-payment of the amount within the stipulated period
will attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The M.A.C.A is disposed of as settled between the parties.
M.P.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
(SENIOR ADVOCATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD.DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Arb.A.No. 37 of 2008()
#1. SRI.B.NARAYANA MURTHY,
... Petitioner
2. SRI.G.VENKATESWARA RAO, BEHIND
3. SRI.G.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, MIG 25/668,
4. M/S.VIJAYA SHRIMP FARM EXPORTS LIMITED,
Vs
$1. THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.A.V.THOMAS
^ For Respondent : No Appearance
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
% Dated :29/10/2008
: O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.
————————————–
Arb.A.No.37 of 2008
————————————-
Dated 29th October, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The appellants herein approached the court below for setting
aside the arbitration award passed against them under section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent is a statutory
authority incorporated for development of marine product industry under
the control of the Union of India. As a part of its functions, it formulated
a scheme to render promotional support and financial assistance for the
establishment of project for seafood processing etc. At the request of
the appellants, the respondent agreed to subscribe equity shares of the
fourth appellant company. Appellants 1 to 3 are its promoters. The
financial agreement is dated 25.10.1993. As per the agreement, the
Marine Products Export Development Authority was allotted with
2,50,000 equity shares of Rs.10/= each and paid share value of
Rs.25,00,000/=. Appellants were bound to buy the said shares upon
expiry of five years from the date of commencement of commercial
production by the company for the price to be calculated in the manner
provided in the agreement. The company started commercial production
on 1.10.1994. The appellants failed to purchase the shares as per the
Arb.A.37/2008 2
agreement inspite of repeated letters and reminders. On 9.12.1999
the appellants expressed their inability to buy back the shares at that
time. The reason stated is that because of various loss, supreme court
orders on environmental protection, financial difficulties etc., they
were running on a huge loss. Subsequently, the industry was also
closed. They were unable to function the factory with profit and the
factory was ultimately closed. But, the Arbitrator held that as per the
agreement, they were bound to buy back the shares on the terms of
the agreement and award was passed strictly in terms of the
agreement. The award was challenged before the District Court. The
District court found that no grounds are made out to set aside the
award. The award of the Arbitrator cannot be set aside on mere
asking unless specific grounds mentioned under the Act are
established. It is true that there was financial difficulties, but, the
amount taken as advance has to be repaid and in any event, no
grounds are made out for interfering in the said award. Therefore, we
refuse to set aside the award passed or the well reasoned order of the
District Court. We make it clear that this will not preclude the
appellants from applying to the statutory authorities to grant them
time or some indulgence regarding payment of the amount. It is also
prayed by the counsel for the appellants that assets of the company
should be proceeded first as substantial amount can be realised from
Arb.A.37/2008 3
the assets. In fact, the respondent authority wants the money back.
It is for the respondent to proceed against the assets of the company
first and if it is not realised only steps need be taken for personal
execution unless unnecessary obstructions are created by the
appellants in proceeding against the company assets.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
K.P.BALACHANDRAN
JUDGE
tks