IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 AR.No. 5 of 2010 APPLICANT ------------------ VOLTAS LIMITED,VOLTAS HOUSE 'A', DR.BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR ROAD,CHINCHPOKLI, MUMBAI-430 033 AND AN OFFICE,INTER ALIA,AT VOLTAS LIMITED, SHEMA BUILDING,DOOR NO.39/3608,M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 016,REPRESENTED BY G.P.SHIJITH, TERRITORY MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN SMT.A.S.BEENU SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.R.S.GEETHA OPPOSITE PARTY -------------------------- 1. HT SEA FOODS PVT.LTD.,GAZEBO HOUSE, 52,GULMOHAR ROAD 7,JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI-400 049. 2. HT SEA FOODS PVT.LTD,PLOT NO.17/SDF, GROUND FLOOR,UNIT 3 & 4,CSEZ,KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 037. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN SMT.P.A.RINUSA THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Arbitration Request NO.5 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 O R D E R The applicant and the respondent entered into Annexure 2 contract for the supply and installation of two numbers of Deep Freeze Chambers and Ante Room as per the specifications mentioned in the contract at the premises of the respondent. The installation was admittedly done. According to the respondent, installation was not done properly, resulting in loss to the respondent. According to the respondent, there was delay in supply and installation. The respondent also contended that the Units were not functioning properly. Disputes arose between the parties. 2. In Annexure 2 agreement, there is an arbitration clause, which provides that “in case of any disputes the Contractor will abide by the decision of the Consultant or any other person appointed by the Owner as a Sole Arbitrator”. The 'contractor' referred to in Annexure 2 is the applicant, while the respondent is referred to as the 'owner'. Arbitration Request NO.5 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 3. Annexure 10 notice was issued on behalf of the applicant to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause and calling upon the respondent to appoint an independent and unbiased arbitrator. The respondent did not send any reply to the notice. 4. The relief sought for in the Arbitration Request is to appoint an arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties and the claims of the applicant, which are summarized in paragraph 27 of the Arbitration Request. The respondent has no objection to appoint an arbitrator. It is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that Advocate A.Mohammed Mustaque may be appointed as the sole arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed. Advocate A.Mohammed Mustaque is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator for resolving the disputes referred to above. The Arbitrator would be entitled to fix his fee. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/