IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 AR.No. 21 of 2009() ------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- BIJU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MEPPALYA HOUSE KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SATHYAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY,MALIYEKAL HOUSE KUTTANELLUR DESOM, OLLUR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ANIL XAVIER FOR R1 SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY FOR R1 SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) FOR R1 SRI.ANIL XAVIER SRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY SMT.K.INDU (POURNAMI) THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- A.R.No.21 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010 ORDER The petitioner and the respondent entered into a partnership business under the name and style M.M.Industries, as per the partnership deed dated 11.8.2003. The firm was engaged in the business of engineering works. It is stated that the business activity of the firm was being carried on in a shed constructed in the property owned by the father of the respondent. Disputes arose between the partners. It is also stated that the father of the respondent wanted vacant possession of the property. It is stated that when the petitioner requested the respondent for shifting the business to another site, the respondent refused. 2. Annexure A is the partnership agreement. Clause 7 of Annexure A provides for appointing an arbitrator by mutual consent in the event of any dispute or differences between the parties. Annexure B notice dated 21.10.2008 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent for appointing an arbitrator by AR No.21/2009 2 mutual consent. No reply was sent by the respondent. 3. In this Arbitration Request, the petitioner has suggested the name of the following Advocates practicing at Thrissur as arbitrator. They are :(1) Sri.Ravikumar Uppath, Sri.K.G.Raghunathan and Sri.V.Girissan. 4. When the Arbitration Request came up for hearing on 27th May, 2010, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection in referring the disputes to the arbitrator. However, the respondent suggested that Advocate Sri.Gireendra Babu may be appointed as the arbitrator. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection in appointing Sri.Gireendra Babu, Advocate, Thrissur as the sole arbitrator. 6. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed. Sri.Gireendra Babu, Advocate, Thrissur is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of the partnership business conducted by them in terms of Annexure A partnership deed dated 11.8.2003. Both parties submitted that it is necessary to resolve the AR No.21/2009 3 disputes within a period of six months. The arbitrator will make every effort to see that the disputes are resolved at the earliest. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl AR No.21/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- A.R.No.21 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 ORDER The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection in referring the dispute to arbitration. He submitted that the respondent suggested the name of Advocate Sri.Gireendra Babu as the sole arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has suggested names of three advocates. All of them are advocates practicing at Thrissur and any one of them may be appointed as the sole arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to get instructions on the suggestion made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Post on 1.6.2010. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl AR No.21/2009 5