IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 AR.No. 20 of 2011() ------------------- APPLICANT ----------------------------- QUALITY CARE INDIA LIMITED, REGD.OFFICE AT 6-3-248/2, ROAD NO.1, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-34, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DR.N.KRISHNA REDDY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.JOSEPH (ALAPPUZHA) SRI.G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY SRI.A.SANJEEVA REDDY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.SAGAR HOSPITALS, PATHADIPALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MRS.HASEENA MOHAMMED ALI, W/O.DR.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI, R/AT. 'BEEVA', MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683520. 2. MRS.HASEENA MOHAMMED ALI, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.SAGAR HOSPITALS, PATHADIPALAM, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, W/O.DR.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI, R/AT. 'BEEVA', MANNAM P.O NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA-683520. 3. DR.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI,PARTNER, M/S.SAGAR HOSPITALS,PATHADIPALAM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI, R/AT.'BEEVA',MANNAM P.O.,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA-683520,REP. BY HIS P/A.HOLDER MRS.HASEENA MOHAMMED ALI,W/O.DR.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI, R/AT.DO. DO. DO. 4. MRS.SMITHA MOHAMMED ALI,PARTNER, M/S.SAGAR HOSPITALS,PATHADIPALAM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI, R/AT.'BEEVA',MANNAM P.O.,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA-683520,REP. BY HIS P/A.HOLDER MRS.HASEENA MOHAMMED ALI,W/O.DR.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI, R/AT.DO. DO. DO. ADV. SRI.K.L.VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ASP.KURUP FOR RESPONDENTS SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE FOR RESPONDENTS SRI.RAHUL VARGHESE FOR RESPONDENTS SRI.RANJITH VARGHESE FOR RESPONDENTS THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AR.No. 20 of 2011() APPLICANTS EXTS: ANN:I: COPY OF LEASE DEED DTD.14.12.07 ANN:II: COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DTD.28.11.08 ANN:III: COPY OF REPLY TO THE NOTICE DTD.15.1.2009 ANN:IV: COPY OF REPLY TO THE NOTICE DTD.9.2.09 ANN:V: COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DTD.25.6.2010 ANN:VI: COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DTD.10.7.2010 RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ A.R.No.20 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 ORDER The applicant and the respondents entered into Annexure-I lease deed dated 14th December,2007. Disputes arose between the parties with respect to various matters in connection with the lease deed. Annexure-II notice dated 28.11.2008 was issued by the respondents directing the applicant to surrender vacant possession of the building and to pay a sum of `5,15,00,000/- (Rupees five crores and fifteen lakhs only). The applicant issued Annexure-III reply notice dated 15.1.2009 in which the applicant claimed `18,00,00,000/- (Rupees eighteen crores only) from the respondents. As per Annexure-V notice dated 25.6.2010, the applicant invoked the arbitration clause in Annexure-I lease deed and suggested an arbitrator to be appointed. On behalf of the respondents, Annexure-VI reply was issued objecting to the appointment of the arbitrator as suggested by the applicant. In A.R.No.20 OF 2011 2 these facts and circumstances, the Arbitration Request is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of a sole arbitrator. 2. Clause 14 of Annexure-I lease deed contains the arbitration clause which reads as follows: “All disputes between the Parties arising out of the matters mentioned above in this Lease and other matters incidental to this Lease, shall be resolved as per the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and statutory modifications thereto. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in the English language and the venue of arbitration shall be at Ernakulam. The proceedings will be conducted by a single Arbitrator, who shall be appointed with the mutual consent of both Lessor and Lessee.” 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they suggested the name of an arbitrator to be appointed as their nominee along with the arbitrator suggested by the applicant. It is also stated that the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the said two arbitrators, under Section 11(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the counter affidavit, it is also stated that the said consent is subject to certain conditions which are stated in the counter affidavit. A.R.No.20 OF 2011 3 4. When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the applicant submitted that Annexure-I lease deed contemplates appointment of a sole arbitrator and that constitution of an Arbitraral Tribunal consisting of three members would cause high expenditure to both parties. During the course of arguments, counsel on either side submitted that a sole arbitrator may be appointed by this Court. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, Sri.B.M.Thulasidas, former Judge of this Court is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties with respect to Annexure-I lease deed. The arbitrator would be free to fix the arbitration fee. The Arbitration Request is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms