IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 AR.No. 54 of 2010() ------------------- APPLICANT : -------------------- ESSAR TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE (PRIVATE) LTD. 2ND FLOOR, MATHER SQUARE, COCHIN 682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER(LEGAL) BABU PATTATHANAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THOMAS , S/O.IPYE, SANKURICKAL HOUSE, KEELAPPARA, MALAYATTOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------- A.R.No.54 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 O R D E R The applicant and the respondent entered into Annexure A1 agreement dated 28th July, 2007 for the installation of a Ground Base Tower, security cabin, equipment shelter etc. in the premises of the respondent on the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. Disputes arose between the parties. 2. The arbitration clause in Annexure A1 agreement reads as follows : “19. ARBITRATION - All disputes and differences between the parties hereto arising out of this agreement or in relation to the interpretation or effect of any of the terms and conditions contained in this agreement or in relation to rights and obligations of the parties A.R.No.54/2010 2 hereto shall be referred to mutually appointed arbitrator and if still not able to settle, then will go for arbitration in accordance with provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, or any statutory enactment thereof. The place of arbitration shall be at Cochin and the language of arbitration shall be English.” 3. The applicant issued Annexure A3 notice dated 22.4.2010 to the respondent requesting him to approve the appointment of the arbitrator suggested in the notice. The respondent replied as per Annexure A4 dated 28.5.2010 objecting to the appointment of the arbitrator as mentioned in Annexure A3 notice. The respondent suggested another person who could be appointed as the arbitrator. As per Annexure A5 notice dated 22.6.2010, the applicant did not agree to the name of the arbitrator suggested by the respondent. 4. There is no dispute that the matter requires reference to arbitration. The only dispute is to who should be appointed as the arbitrator. It is submitted by both parties A.R.No.54/2010 3 that it is sufficient, if an Advocate practising in this Court is appointed as the arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed. Advocate R.K.Muraleedharan is appointed as the arbitrator. The arbitrator would be free to fix his fee. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl