IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16505 of 2007(M)
1. P.R. PASCAL, S/O. RAPHAEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
For Petitioner :SMT.K.NANDINI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble SHRI K. Justice J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
SRI.S.VENKITA SUBRAMANIA IYER
(SENIOR ADVOCATE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
================================
W.P.(C) No.16505 of 2007
================================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
AWARD
The subject matter of the dispute is relating to eviction of
Government land wherein STD booth was being run by the
petitioner. The booth is removed and eviction has taken place.
Nevertheless, on the request by the petitioner the matter was
considered by the Government Authorities. Ultimately, the
Government have decided to allot alternate place near beach in
Alappuzha. Petitioner is also satisfied with the allotment of that
alternate place. The Tahsildar who is present and the
Government Pleader state that alternate accommodation can be
given to the petitioner after complying with the formalities
within three months. It is also stated that steps for allotment of
the alternate place will be taken expeditiously, so that the
alternate place is made available to the petitioner within three
months. The booth is presently in the custody of the Tahsildar.
It is agreed that the structure may be removed by the petitioner
W.P(C).No.16505/2007
2
without causing any damage to the property.
The award is passed accordingly.
S.VENKITA SUBRAMANIA IYER
(SENIOR ADVOCATE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+MFA.No. 475 of 2001(B)
#1. P.S. RAJAN
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. K. SUKUMARAN
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAL
^ For Respondent :SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
% Dated :20/06/2008
: O R D E R
J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.
—————————————————-
M.F.A.NO.475,476 & 495 OF 2001
—————————————————-
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy, J:
The appellants and respondents were partners of a firm called
Priya Coconut Fibers. They entered into a partnership business on
20.6.1976 for the purpose of manufacturing products with coconut
fibers. The partnership was dissolved. There was no agreement
for settling the account. One of the partners of the firm
approached the Sub Court, Thodupuzha, for appointing an arbitrator.
The Sub Court in O.S.(Arb)No. 91 of 1985 held that the matter has
to be referred for arbitration for settlement of the accounts of the
firm. The matter was referred to a single arbitrator as agreed by the
parties. Accordingly, arbitrator was appointed. The parties co-
operated with the arbitrator. The arbitrator finally passed an award
on 12.3.1987. An objection was filed to set aside the award. The
civil court set aside the award mainly on the ground that it is not a
reasoned award. According to the court below, the arbitrator
passed the award relying on Ext.C8 balance sheet without verifying
the ledgers and documents. The matter was referred when
MFA.NO.475/01 & Con.Cases .
2
Arbitration Act, 1940 was in force. There was no obligation on the
arbitrator to pass a speaking award. In the judgment of the court
referring the matter to the arbitrator also, there was no direction
to pass a speaking award. There was no obligation caste upon the
arbitrator to pass a speaking award. In any event, Ext.C8 is a
balance sheet signed by all the partners and it is an audited balance
sheet and therefore, the arbitrator cannot be faulted for relying
on that document. It is a non speaking award. There is no evidence
to show that the arbitrator was partial to one party or the other.
The award was passed in terms of the reference. There is no
evidence to show that the arbitrator committed misconducts. No
ground as mentioned in the Act to set aside the award was made
out. Hence the court below ought to have passed judgment
and decree making the award as the role of the court. Therefore,
the award passed by the arbitrator ought to have been accepted.
We dismiss I.A.Nos.537 of 1987 and 521 of 1987 in O.S.(ARB)No.91
of 1985 and allow I.A.No.487 of 1987 and award is made as the
role of the court.
All the appeals are allowed.
J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
cl MFA.NO.475/01 & Con.Cases . 3 J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. M.F.A.NO.475,476 & 495 OF 2001 JUDGMENT 20th day of June, 2008. MFA.NO.475/01 & Con.Cases . 4