IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 AR.No. 42 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2010 IN IA.899/09 IN OS.26/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER ------------------- P.T.MOHAN BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM GARDENS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. P.T.CHANDRA BABU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 2. P.T.SUBHASH BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 3. P.T.ROY BABU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. 4. P.T.PRAKASH BABU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. R1 ADVS. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.MERIL MUTHU P.JOHN THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ A.R.No.42 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 21 st day of February, 2011 ORDER The petitioner and the respondents entered into Annexure-1 partnership deed dated 1.4.1980 which contains an arbitration clause at paragraph 14 as under: “14. Disputes arising among the partners over this partnership during or on termination of the partnership shall be resolved by an arbitrator appointed in this behalf by all partners and his decision shall be final and binding.” 2. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. The petitioner filed O.S.No.26 of 1997 on the file of the court of the Munsiff of Punalur for dissolution of partnership. As per Annexure-2 judgment, the parties were referred to arbitration. The petitioner filed I.A.No.899 of 2009 in O.S.No.26 of 1997 to reopen the proceedings in the suit, alleging that the respondents did not co-operate for the appointment of the Arbitrator. The Munsiff's Court dismissed that application by the order dated A.R.No.42 OF 2010 2 17.2.2010. 3. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator. 4. The petitioner has submitted a panel of arbitrators. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has no objection in appointing Sri.M.Rajendran Nair, Retired District Judge as the Arbitrator,from among the names of arbitrators suggested by the petitioner. There is no appearance for respondents 2 to 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Arbitration Request is allowed. Sri.M.Rajendran Nair, (Retired District Judge), Thonalloor Veedu, A.R.No.42 OF 2010 3 Kamukumchery P.O, Piravanthoor is appointed as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator would be free to fix his fee. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms