IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 AR.No. 25 of 2008() ------------------- APPLICANT ------------------------------ N.SAHADEVAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, BUSINESS, MADHUR, PUZHATHI AMSOM, KAKKAD DESOM, P.O.KAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.N.MAHADEVAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, BUSINESS, KUMAR MANDIR, PUZHATHI AMSOM, KAKKAD DESOM, P.O.KAKKAD, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. GEETHA PRAKASHAN, W/O.PRAKASHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, BUSINESS, SOUPARNIKA, THAZHE CHOVVA, P.O.THAZHE CHOVVA, ELAYAVOOR AMSOM, THAZHE CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR DIST. 3. GEETHA SUDHAKARAN, W/O.V.K.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, MEENATH HOUSE, NEAR SREE KRISHNA KALYANA MANDAPAM, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM DESOM, P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-11. ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL FOR R1-3 SRI.N.M.MADHU FOR R1-3 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Arbitration Request No.25 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October , 2008 ORDER This is an application under Section 11(6) for appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator for settling the disputes that have arisen between the parties. Clause 15 of Annexture 2 partnership agreement is according to me a valid arbitration clause. That clause has been duly invoked by the applicant by issuing Annexture 6 notice. Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal would draw my attention to Annexture 5 application submitted by the applicant for interim orders under section 9 and submit that the applicant's objective in filing this application is to have a dissolution of the partnership. But Annexture 6 arbitration notice according to him is silent regarding dissolution of the partnership. On the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Tata Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Grasin Industries Ltd ( 2008(5) Supreme 142), Sri.Kaimal would submit that in order that an application under section 11(6) is maintainable before the Chief Justice or the designated Judge, there must be some live issue subsisting between the parties so AR.No.25/08 2 that the arbitrator can settle the same. 2. On behalf of Sri.N.Nagaresh, it was submitted by the learned counsel representing him that more than one live issue subsists. The first issue is that the respondent is obstructing the conduct of partnership business in the present premises of the firm. Second issue of course is that under the existing circumstance the applicant is no longer desirous of continuing the partnership. Both these issues according to the learned counsel would fall within Clause 15 of Annexture 2. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that all surviving issues between the parties including the issue whether there is any surviving issue in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court can be settled by the arbitrator. Accordingly, as agreed to by both sides, I appint Adv.K.Sankaranarayanan, s/o late Maheswaran Nampoothiripad, Sreeram Sadan, Thiruvangad, Thalassery -3, as the arbitrator for settling the disputes and issues between the parties. Arbitrator will invite claims and counter claims from the parties and will by himself settle the terms of reference. The arbitrator will hear AR.No.25/08 3 the parties preliminarily on the question as to whether any issue survives between the parties in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court and give his decision on the same before proceeding to decide the other issues. The arbitrator belongs to Thalasseri and the venue of the proceedings can be either Kannur or Thalasseri. The arbitrator is allowed to fix reasonable terms regarding his remuneration. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. AR.No.25/08 4