IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 38 of 2010() -------------------- OS.1059/2008 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS 1 & 2/ DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. KALYANEE MARINE, 2-181, 5TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI – 6000 087, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTENR MR. K.R. MAYALAGU, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. MR. RANGASWAMI, NO.1, SOLAIKRISHNAN STREET, JANAKI NAGAR, VALASARAWAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 080. 2. K.R. MAYALAGU, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. MR. RANGASWAMI, NO.1, SOLAIKRISHNAN STREET, JANAKI NAGAR, VALASARAWAKKAM, CHENNAI – 600 080. BY ADV. MR. ANIL XAVIER MR. M.SHAHEED AHMAD MR. M.RISHIKESH SHENOY MS. K.INDU (POURNAMI) RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/ PLAINTIFF:- ----------------------------------------------- THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MPEDA HOUSE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, P.B. NO. 4272, COCHIN – 682 036 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. J. RAMESH AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE MR. K. JANARDHANAN, RESIDING AT THANKASSERY P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR. JOSEPH KODIANTHORA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- C.R.P. No. 38 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. ORDER Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 1059 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam are the revision petitioners. They are aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in I.A No. 4959 of 2009 as per which they sought a reference of the dispute for arbitration by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 151 C.P.C. The main ground on which the said I.A was dismissed by the court below is that the document produced as the arbitration agreement was only a bond not signed by the plaintiff. But, clause 19 of the said document reads as follows:- “It is specified and agreed by the parties that the chairman MPEDA shall appoint a person to be the sole arbitrator for all disputes in connection with the scheme, the bond or any other document relating to grant of subsidy including the interpretation of any clauses thereof, and the decision of the arbitration shall be final and binding on the parties”. C.R.P. No. 38/2010 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff also submitted that they are amenable to arbitration. Such being the position, in terms of clause 19 of the said bond which satisfies the definition of an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act, I.A. No. 4959 of 2009 filed by the revision petitioners before the court below shall stand allowed. This revision is allowed as above. Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv C.R.P. No. 38/2010 : 3 :