IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 AR.No. 29 of 2008() ------------------- PETITIONER -------------------------------- SHAJU THOMAS,S/O (LATE) THOMAS, PUTHENANGADY HOUSE, NAZARETH ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT --------------- THE MANAGER, FORD CREDIT KOTAK MAHINDRA LTD., THADIKKARAN BUILDING, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN -25. THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.R.No. 29 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 ORDER Service is completed. No appearance for the respondent. Annexure A1 is the agreement between the parties. Clause 30 is the arbitration clause which provides that arbitration proceedings shall be held in Mumbai. Clause 31 is the jurisdiction clause which provides that it is the courts at the location i.e. the place where the agreement is executed which will have jurisdiction over “ arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996”. Though in Annexure A1 the place of execution is kept blank, in the arbitration request there is an assertion by the petitioner that the agreement has been executed at Cochin. In the absence of any counter by the respondent, the above assertion can be accepted and it can be proceeded on the basis that Annexure A1 agreement has been executed at Cochin. On a conjoint reading of clauses 30 and 31 of Annexure A1, there is merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner especially in the absence of any counter by the AR.No.29/08 2 respondent that the arbitration request is maintainable before this court. Annexure A2 is the copy of notice by which the arbitration clause has been invoked by the petitioner and the petitioner's claim that inspite of such valid invocation of the arbitration clause, the respondent did not appoint the Arbitrator within the time limit stipulated stands established. I do not find any reason for not allowing the arbitration request. The Arbitration Request will stand allowed. Allowing the Arbitration Request, I appoint Sri.S.Sainudeen ,Retired District Judge, Thenguvila Puthenveedu, Keralapuram, Vellimon P.O., Kollam as Arbitrator for settling all the disputes between the parties over Annexure A1 agreement which is the subject matter of Annexure A2 notice. The Arbitrator will enter on reference and make and publish his award at the earliest. The arbitrator can hold sittings at Cochin or any other place of his choice. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. AR.No.29/08 2