IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 AR.No. 38 of 2009() ------------------- APPLICANT (S) : ------------------------------ K.L.JOSEPH, SON OF LONAN, KOITHARA HOUSE, SHINE ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. BY ADV. SRI.P.F.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.V.THEO, SON OF VARGHESE, KATTITHAR HOUSE, COSMOS ROAD, VYTTILA, COCHIN-19. ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- Arbitration Request No.38 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This Arbitration Request is filed for an order appointing an Arbitrator as provided under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the respondent. 2. According to the applicant, he and the respondent are partners of a firm, the partnership deed of which is Annexure 5. It is stated that Clause 17 of the partnership deed provides for resolution of disputes among partners by arbitration. It is stated that disputes arose and by Annexure 1, the applicant appointed an Arbitrator, which was not agreed to by the respondent and that thereafter this arbitration request is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act enables the Honourable Chief Justice or his designate to appoint an Arbitrator. Such power of appointment can be exercised only in the A.R.No.38/2009 -2- event of failure of the agreed procedure for resolving the disputes. In this case, though, Annexure 5 partnership deed provides for Arbitration to resolve disputes, appointment of an Arbitrator is contemplated only in the event the dispute is not resolved after discussion in the general body of the partners. 4. In this case, not only that there is no pleadings, but even no document is produced to show that the matter was discussed in the general body of the partners and that the parties failed to resolve the controversy in the general body necessitating the appointment of an arbitrator. Therefore, the pre-conditions for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator, namely, discussion in the general boy and failure to resolve the dispute, are not satisfied, in which event, the power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot be invoked. In view of this, I do not find any ground to appoint an Arbitrator as sought for. This arbitration request is accordingly rejected. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg