IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AR No. 23 of 2007()
1. M.K.ABRAHAM, KATTOTTUMANNIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. OOMMEN ABRAHAM,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :02/11/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
--------------------------
A.R.. NO. 23 OF 2007
---------------------
Dated this the 22ndday of November, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner and the respondent have been partners in a
registered partnership firm under the name and style “NEZY PLAST”
having head office at West Othara, Thiruvalla. Annexure A is the copy of
partnership deed and Annexure B is the copy of supplementary partnership
deed. Petitioner claims to be a working partner in the firm. Petitioner
alleges that after the retirement of two partners who were inducted into the
firm by Annexure B, the respondent resisted the partner’s involvement in
the business and also stopped giving profit share to him. Since the
petitioner felt that the respondent was acting in detrimental to the interest of
the firm and to his interest, Annexure C notice was sent to the respondent
seeking a settlement. There was no response to Annexure C. Therefore
invoking the arbitration clause (Clause 22 of Annexure B) petitioner sent
Annexure D notice. Annexure D notice also did not produce any result. It
is pointed out that despite lapse of 30 days from the date of issuance of
Annexure C, the respondent has not initiated any steps for appointing the
respondent’s arbitrator as envisaged under Clause 22 of Annexure B.
Hence, the present application is filed under Section 11 (4) and (5) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 invoking the statutory appointment
procedure.
A.R. NO. 23/07 Page numbers
2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent
producing Exts.R(a) to R(e) documents. But, I find that all the contentions
raised therein are contentions relating to the merits of the dispute between
the parties. That there is an arbitration agreement between the parties for
resolving those disputes is beyond controversy. All the claims and counter
claims can be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It was agreed to by both sides
that it will suffice if an Advocate of this court is appointed as arbitrator. The
name of Sri. Sathish Ninan, an Advocate who belongs to Thiruvalla, was
suggested since, there was no agreement between the parties regarding
the three names mentioned in the application. There is no opposition for
the appointment of Sri. Sathish Ninan, in case this court is inclined to
appoint arbitrator.
In the result, the application will stand allowed. Sri. Sathish Ninan
Advocate of this court is appointed as arbitrator. The arbitrator will issue
notice to all other necessary parties if a contention in that regard is taken
by the respondent before the arbitrator. The arbitrator will permit those
parties also to participate in the proceedings. The arbitrator will enter on
arbitration at his earliest and pass the award without undue delay.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
vps
A.R. NO. 23/07 Page numbers