IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 AR.No. 16 of 2010() --------------------------- APPLICANT (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ M/S.PAN PACIFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES (P) LTD,MERRA -17,PRIYA,MENON PARAMBU ROAD,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M.G.RAMESH,AGED 55,S/O.K.N.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, RESIDING AT SAROJ ENCLAVE,MERRA 38-B,PONNIN CHIRA ROAD,KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR OPPOSITE PARTY/RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------------------------------- M/S.VIJAYAMOHINI MILLS THIRUMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ A.R.No.16 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27 th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The applicant, namely, M/s.Pan Pacific Engineering Services (P) Ltd. entered into a contract with the respondent, M/s.Vijayamohini Mills, Thiruvananthapuram, for construction of the Spinning Humidification Plant, underground trenches and spinning department re-flooring for the respondent mills at Thirumala, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-A1 agreement was entered into between the parties. Clause 8 thereof reads as follows: “8. Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties and of or relating to the construction, interpretation, application, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this contract or the validity or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance Conditions of the Contract and the award made in pursuance thereof shall be final & binding on the parties.” A.R.No.16 OF 2010 2 2. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect of the contract. Annexure-A2 notice dated 27 th May, 2009 was sent by the applicant to the respondent in which a request was made to the respondent to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the agreement between the parties. Though the respondent sent Annexure-A3 reply dated 18.7.2009, nothing was stated about the demand for appointing an arbitrator. The applicant sent Annexure-A5 notice dated 10 th September, 2009 in which the request for appointing an arbitrator was reiterated. The respondent did not send any reply to the notice dated 10 th September, 2009. Hence the applicant has filed this Arbitration Request under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 3. The applicant has filed a panel of arbitrators in which three names of arbitrators have been suggested. A.R.No.16 OF 2010 3 4. Though the respondent entered appearance and sought several adjournments to explore the possibilities of settlement, it is reported that no settlement could be arrived at. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. 5. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Arbitration Request is liable to be allowed. There is no suggestion on the part of the respondent as to the personnel of arbitrator. It is submitted by both parties that a technical expert is required for effectively carrying out the arbitration proceedings. 6. The respondent has not raised any objection to the appointment of any one of the three arbitrators suggested by the applicant. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed and Sri.V.Ravindranathn Nair, B.Arch, FIIA FIB 1024 (CA-76-2797), Retd.Chief Architect, Government of A.R.No.16 OF 2010 4 Kerala and Registered Valuer, TC 16/1839(I), Jagathy Junction , Thiruvananthapuram -695 014, is appointed as the arbitrator. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms