High Court Kerala High Court

Ranjith Madhavan vs Airport Director Airport … on 7 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ranjith Madhavan vs Airport Director Airport … on 7 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29454 of 2008(F)


1. RANJITH MADHAVAN, AGED 47, S/O.MADHAVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AIRPORT DIRECTOR AIRPORT AUTHORITY
                       ...       Respondent

2. REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIRPORTS

3. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, RAJIV

4. ARBITRATOR, DINESH KUMAR, CHENNAI

5. FEDERAL BANK LTD.REP. BY ITS BRANCH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :07/10/2008

 O R D E R
                              V.GIRI,J.
                       -------------------------
                 W.P ( C) No.29454 of 2008
                       --------------------------
               Dated this the 7th October, 2008

                         J U D G M E N T

Dispute between the petitioner and Airport Authority

was referred to the Sole Arbitrator in terms of Exhibit P1.

That resulted in Exhibit P22 award. Petitioner is

aggrieved by a portion of the Award. If so, it is open to

the petitioner to take steps in that regard. Petitioner

apprehends that in the wake of Exhibit P22 award steps

will be taken by the Airport Authorities to encash the

bank guarantee referred to in clause 4 of Exhibit P1

agreement. Learned counsel for the respondents submits

that they are yet to receive the original of Exhibit P22

award and they will not take any steps to encash the bank

guarantee until they receive the amount.

2. Be that as it may, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, I think it is appropriate that

petitioner be granted some breathing time to take steps

in relation to Exhibit P22 award.

W.P ( C) No.29454 of 2008
2

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing

respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance any steps to encash

the bank guarantee furnished at the instance of the

petitioner and referred to in clause 4 of Exhibit P1 for a

period of four weeks from today. I make it clear that the

direction need not be treated as an expression of opinion

by this Court on the merits of the contention raised by the

petitioner. It is intended only to afford some breathing

time to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in relation

to Exhibit P22 award.

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No.29454 of 2008
3

W.P ( C) No.29454 of 2008
4