IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 AR.No. 17 of 2010() ------------------- PETITIONER (S): -------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT- CORPORATION LIMITED,KELTRON HOUSE,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033,REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): 1 ---------------- 1. M/S.RAM ADVERTISING,2A,MALAVIKA APARTMENTS,45,III MAIN ROAD,GANDI NAGAR, ADAYAR,CHENNAI-600 020,REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S.SHIRAM. 2. S.SHIRAM,PROPRIETOR, M/S.MALAVIKA APARTMENTS,45,III MAIN ROAD, GANDI NAGAR,ADAYAR,CHENNAI-600 020 ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP FOR R2 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- A.R. No. 17 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The petitioner, the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. entered into Exhibit A1 agreement-Licence Deed dated 31.1.2009 with the first respondent. In Exhibit A1 agreement, M/s. Century Direct and Advertising & Marketing Private Limited, to whom the petitioner had granted licence earlier in point of time, was also a party. That agreement had come to an end and both parties, namely, the petitioner and M/s. Century Direct and Advertising & Marketing Private Limited had no objection to the agreement being entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner had bid in auction the rights to display the advertisements on the buses belonging to K.S.R.T.C. As per Exhibit A1 agreement, the petitioner sub-licenced certain rights to the first respondent for the consideration agreed upon between the parties. There arose dispute between the petitioner and the first respondent. The petitioner issued Exhibit A2 notice dated 4/1/2010 to the first A.R. No. 17/ 2010 2 respondent claiming a sum of Rs.1,48,34,416/- with interest. It was also mentioned in Exhibit A2 notice that on failure to comply with the demand in the notice, the petitioner would be constrained to resort to the provisions of Clause 25 of the agreement dated 31/1/2009. 2. The first respondent issued Exhibit A3 reply notice dated 19/1/010 in which they put forward a counter claim. They denied their liability to pay any amount to the petitioner. On the other hand, they claimed a sum of Rs.1,81,57,893/- from the petitioner. The first respondent also mentioned in Exhibit A3 that on the failure of the petitioner to pay the amount to the first respondent, the latter would be constrained to invoke the Arbitration Clause in Exhibit A1. Clause 25 of Exhibit A1 agreement reads as follows: “In case of any dispute between the parties herein arising out of the business which is the subject matter of this agreement, shall be decided by Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 as amended from time to time. The venue of the Arbitration shall be Trivandrum.” 3. When the Arbitration Request came up for hearing, it was agreed by the parties that Justice Sri.S.Subramani, a former A.R. No. 17/ 2010 3 Judge of this Court and Madras High Court may be appointed as the sole arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed and Justice Sri.S.Subramani is appointed as the arbitrator. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm