IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 AR.No. 40 of 2010() ------------------- APPLICANT ------------------ M.G.VIJAKUMAR, GRACE HOMES, VAYAPPARAPADI, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT AT HILL QPI JV(P.B.NO.105461), REEM ISLAND, ABUDHABI, U.A.E. BY ADV. SRI.B.MANIMOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KITCO LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI- 682 016. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON FOR R1 SRI.NITHIN GEORGE FOR R1 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- A.R.No.40 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010 ORDER The applicant and the respondent entered into Annexure II agreement to execute and complete the balance work of the construction of tourism complex at Parassinikadavu, Kannur. Paragraph 12 of Annexure II contains the arbitration clause, which reads as follows : “In the event of any question, dispute and or difference whatsoever arising under the agreement or in connection there with including any question relating to existence, meaning and interpretation of the agreement or any alleged breach thereof, if not settled, the same shall be referred to an arbitrator nominated by KITCO and the disputes shall be settled in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.” AR No.40/2010 2 2. Disputes arose between the parties. According to the applicant, he is entitled to get the balance amount of ` 32,34,539/- from the respondent. 3. The prayer in this Arbitration Request is to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes which arose between the parties. The respondents filed a counter affidavit in which various contentions have been raised. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit also. 4. When the Arbitration Request came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that an arbitrator can be appointed for resolving the disputes between the parties in relation to Annexure II agreement. The name of the proposed arbitrator is suggested by the respondent in writing. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the person mentioned in the statement dated 16th November, 2010 filed by the counsel for the respondent is AR No.40/2010 3 agreeable to the applicant and he can be appointed as the arbitrator. Accordingly, Brigadier (Retd.) A.K.Philip, V.S.M., Retd. Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Services, 10-E, Kattikkaran Towers, Ernakulam North P.O., Kochi 682 018, is appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties in connection with Annexure II agreement and the matters incidental thereto. The arbitrator would be free to fix his fee. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl