IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 AR.No. 16 of 2008() ------------------- APPLICANTS: ------------------------------- 1. SOMA JACOB ALIAS SOMA KURUVILLA, KAMPAKALUNKAL, MAIATHURUTHU POST, KOTTAYAM-686027. 2. SUSAN JACOB ALIAS SUSAN PHILIP, MUNDUKOTTACKAL, UNIVERSITY ROAD, S.KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 022, REPRESENTED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - APPLICANT NO.1. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI OPPOSITE PARTY: ------------------------------ 1. MOHAN JACOB, S/O.LATE C.T.JACOB, MANAGING PARTNER, HOTEL AIDA, AIDA JUNCTION, M.C. ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 039. 2. JACOBY JACOB, PARTNER, HOTEL AIDA, AIDA JUNCTION, M.C.ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 039. ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R1 & 2 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- A.R. No. 16 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the day of January, 2008 O R D E R This request under section 11(6) and 11(8) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by two sisters who claim to be the partners of a partnership firm by name C.T.Jacob (Kelachandra) & Sons (Hotel Aida) constituted as per Annexure-I partnership deed dated 1-4-1992. The opposite parties are the brothers of the applicants and the first opposite party is the Managing Partner of the firm and the second opposite party is another partner of the firm who is actively involved in the conduct of the business of running hotel Aida which is the main business of the firm. According to the petitioners, for the last few years the opposite parties have not given any share of profits in the business of the firm to the applicants nor have they furnished accounts of the firm to the applicants. They also complain that the opposite parties have started preventing them from involving in the business. Applicants allege that the opposite parties have deliberately committed breach of the terms of Annexure-I partnership deed. The applicants state that since the opposite parties are their own brothers they have far waited patiently hoping that things would improve by passage of time. Despite several rounds of meetings for the purpose of settling WP(C)N0. -2- the dispute between parties no settlement could be reached so far. On realising that a mutually agreeable settlement between the partners is very unlikely the applicants decided to move for dissolution of the firm and also to invoke clause 16 of Annexure – I which is an arbitration clause. Invoking clause 16 Annexure-II lawyer notice dated 10-10-07 was issued. Annexure – III is the acknowledgment issued by the first opposite party in respect of Annexure – II. The opposite parties have not chosen even to send a reply to Annexure – II. Left with no other alternative the applicants issued Annexure – IV notice dated 3-3-2008 suggesting the name of an independent and competent person to be appointed as sole arbitrator for resolving the disputes. To Annexure – IV the first opposite party has send Annexure -V reply dated 23-4- 2008. According to the applicants the contentions raised in Annexure – V are untenable and it is clear from Annexure – V that the opposite parties have no intention to settle the disputes fairly and amicably. It is under the above circumstance that the arbitration request is filed by the applicants seeking appointment of an independent and impartial person to act as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and difference of opinion between the parties and in relation to the running, settlement of accounts and dissolution of the firm by name WP(C)N0. -3- M/s.C.T.Jacob (Kelachandra) & Sons. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)