IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2007 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1929 AR.No. 23 of 2007() ------------------- PETITIONER ------------- M.K.ABRAHAM, KATTOTTUMANNIL, WEST OTHARA, KUTTOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: ------------- OOMMEN ABRAHAM, ADICHARA KIZHEKKETHIL, KUTTOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/ 11 /2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. -------------------------- A.R.. NO. 23 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2007 ORDER The petitioner and the respondent have been partners in a registered partnership firm under the name and style “NEZY PLAST” having head office at West Othara, Thiruvalla. Annexure A is the copy of partnership deed and Annexure B is the copy of supplementary partnership deed. Petitioner claims to be a working partner in the firm. Petitioner alleges that after the retirement of two partners who were inducted into the firm by Annexure B, the respondent resisted the partner's involvement in the business and also stopped giving profit share to him. Since the petitioner felt that the respondent was acting in detrimental to the interest of the firm and to his interest, Annexure C notice was sent to the respondent seeking a settlement. There was no response to Annexure C. Therefore invoking the arbitration clause (Clause 22 of Annexure B) petitioner sent Annexure D notice. Annexure D notice also did not produce any result. It is pointed out that despite lapse of 30 days from the date of issuance of Annexure C, the respondent has not initiated any steps for appointing the respondent's arbitrator as envisaged under Clause 22 of Annexure B. Hence, the present application is filed under Section 11 (4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 invoking the statutory appointment procedure. A.R. NO. 23/07 Page numbers 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent producing Exts.R(a) to R(e) documents. But, I find that all the contentions raised therein are contentions relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. That there is an arbitration agreement between the parties for resolving those disputes is beyond controversy. All the claims and counter claims can be adjudicated by the arbitrator. It was agreed to by both sides that it will suffice if an Advocate of this court is appointed as arbitrator. The name of Sri. Sathish Ninan, an Advocate who belongs to Thiruvalla, was suggested since, there was no agreement between the parties regarding the three names mentioned in the application. There is no opposition for the appointment of Sri. Sathish Ninan, in case this court is inclined to appoint arbitrator. In the result, the application will stand allowed. Sri. Sathish Ninan Advocate of this court is appointed as arbitrator. The arbitrator will issue notice to all other necessary parties if a contention in that regard is taken by the respondent before the arbitrator. The arbitrator will permit those parties also to participate in the proceedings. The arbitrator will enter on arbitration at his earliest and pass the award without undue delay. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE vps A.R. NO. 23/07 Page numbers