IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 AR.No. 15 of 2010 PETITIONER: A.P.RAJENDRAN, S/O.A.P.RAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, ARAYAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENTS : 1. NASAR KALIYADAN, S/O.SAINUDHEEN KALIYADAN, AGED 46 YEARS, KALIYADAN HOUSE, ARICHOL, PUTHUR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. AJEESH K.P., S/O.VELAYUDHAN K.P., 34 YEARS, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ A.R. NO. 15 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 formed a partnership as per Annexure-1 partnership deed dated 4.8.2006. As per the partnership deed, the partners decided to run the firm under the name and style “M/S. DO WELL JEWEL CASTING”. Clause 20 of the Partnership deed contains the arbitration clause, which reads as follows: “20. That any dispute or difference which may arise between the parties or between any one of them or their legal representatives and whether during or after the partnership with regard to the construction, meaning or effect of this deed or any part thereof or respect to the accounts, profits and losses of the partnership under this deed, or dissolution or winding up of the business or any matter relating to the partners shall be referred to the arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.” 2. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. Annexure-2 notice dated 15.12.2009 was sent on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents intimating the respondents that A.R. NO.15 OF 2010 :: 2 :: P.C.Pramodh, Advocate could be appointed as the Arbitrator for resolving the disputes. In Annexure-2 notice, it was also mentioned that if the respondents had any other choice of Arbitrator, the petitioner may be duly informed within a week. It is submitted that no reply was sent to Annexure-2 notice. 3. In Annexure-2 notice, it is stated that though the petitioner was the Managing Partner, he was not acting as such due to difference of opinion among the partners. It is also stated that the petitioner was not given his due share of profits for the last one and a half years with reference to the date of issue of Annexure-2 notice. It is also stated that the assets of the partnership would come to more than Rs.66 lakhs. The intention of the petitioner was to resolve and to settle the accounts as mentioned in Annexure-2 notice. 4. The Arbitration Request is filed under Section11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to appoint an arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes among the petitioner and the respondents in respect of Annexure-1 partnership deed. Though notice was served on the respondents in the Arbitration Request, there is no appearance for the respondents. A.R. NO.15 OF 2010 :: 3 :: In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Arbitration Request is allowed. Sri.P.C.Pramodh, Advocate, Manjeri is appointed as the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator shall issue notice to the parties and resolve the dispute among them in respect of Annexure- 1 partnership deed. The Arbitrator would be free to fix his fee. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/