IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 AR.No. 49 of 2008() ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S.S.I.PROPERTY (KERALA) PVT.LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SILVER OAK'S, NEAR GOLF CLUB, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR S.N.RAGHU CHANDRAN NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MR. ABDUL SALAM HASSAN, AGED 53, ENGINEER, S/O. MR.HASSAN RAWTHER, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT "SALAAMS', TC 19/2363, V.P.S-2 POOJAPPURA, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006. THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ami THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... AR.NO. 49 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2009 ORDER Though the respondent was served with notice by special messenger in March 2009, there is no appearance. 2. The petitioner and respondent, as part of a contract, have an arbitration agreement between them. The said clause No.32 of Annexure 1 provides that the parties agree that in case of any dispute arising out of that agreement, such disputes will be referred to an Arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, whose decisions will be final and binding between the parties. When disputes arose, the parties, in fact, negotiated on as to who shall be the Arbitrator. Annexure III onwards would disclose it. Ultimately, Annexure V was issued by the respondent, suggesting the names of Mr. M.J.Mathew and M.Murukesan, Retired Chief Engineers of Kerala State Public Works Department. The petitioner issued Annexure VI stating that either among them could be appointed, since the petitioner accepts both the names. That was on 8.5.2007. Since nothing Ar 49/2008 2 happened thereafter, the petitioner issued Annexure VII stating that it nominates Mr.M.Murukesan, one among the two suggested earlier by the respondent. Annexure VIII is issued by the respondent in reply thereto, stating that Mr. M.J.Mathew has to be the Arbitrator, which suggestion has been negatived by the petitioner issuing Annexure IX. In the context of this correspondence, the uncontested and uncontroverted contention of the petitioner is that the respondent is merely attempting to drag on the matter. 3. Annexure I contains an arbitration agreement in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Pursuant thereto, Annexure V is issued, suggesting the names of two persons, issued by the respondent. When that suggestion was accepted by the petitioner on 8.5.2007, it was for the respondent to make the definite choice within a reasonable time. That having not been made, Annexure B offer was still open for consideration by the petitioner and it was thus that the petitioner, after nearly eight months of Annexure VI, issued Annexure VII, accepting the nomination of Sri M.Murukesan. Obviously therefore, even between the parties, there is a concluded term as to the identity Ar 49/2008 3 of the Arbitrator. I do not find any ground being placed on record by the respondent against this. 4. In the result, this arbitration request is granted appointing Sri.Murukesan.M, Retired Chief Engineer(PWD), Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram as the sole Arbitrator. The petitioner will furnish the complete postal address of the said person for the office to communicate this order. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/29/7