IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2011 / 7TH SRAVANA 1933 AR.No. 28 of 2011 APPLICANT: ------------------- ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD., 2A, SECOND FLOOR, LEELA INFOPARK, TECHNOPARK, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 581. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- MR. P.R.RAGHUVEER DAS, PROPRIETOR, C-SAT VISION, SHENOYS' BUILDING, CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Arb. Request NO. 28 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011 O R D E R The applicant and the respondent entered into Annexure A1 Joint Venture Agreement dated 29.9.2008. Disputes arose between the parties in respect of the matters mentioned in the Joint Venture Agreement. The applicant has filed this Arbitration Request to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Clause 10 of Annexure A1 Agreement contains the arbitration clause, which reads as follows: “10. Arbitration Clause Any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be referred for Arbitration as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the Arbitrator nominated jointly by the Joint Venture Partners. The place of Arbitration shall be Trivandrum and the Courts in Trivandrum where this agreement is executed alone will have jurisdiction to try/deal with any suit or litigation or adjudication regarding any dispute arising out of this agreement.” ARB. REQUEST NO.28 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 3. The applicant issued Annexure A2 lawyer's notice dated 10.9.2009 to the respondent putting forward the claim of `29,73,900/- and requesting the respondent to pay the amount and to continue to pay the amount payable every month in terms of the Joint Venture Agreement. An alternative claim was also put forward in Annexure A2 notice. In the said notice, the applicant suggested the names of two retired District Judges and requested the respondent to nominate either of them. There was no reply to that notice. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent agrees for the appointment of Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran, Retired District Judge, Karthika, Amman Kovil Street, Near Collectorate, Thevally, Kollam, whose name is suggested in Annexure A2 notice, as the sole arbitrator. On the basis of the agreement between the parties, the Arbitration Request is allowed and Sri.M.S.Mohanachandran, Retired District Judge is appointed as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties arising out of Annexure A1 Agreement and as mentioned in Annexure A2 notice. The venue of arbitration shall be at ARB. REQUEST NO.28 OF 2011 :: 3 :: Thiruvananthapuram, as agreed upon between the parties. The Arbitrator would be free to fix the arbitration fee. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ The words “and as mentioned in Annexure A2 notice” occurring in the first sentence in the last paragraph of the order dated 29/07/2011 in A.R.28/2011 are deleted as per order dated 20/08/2011 in R.P.613/2011 in A.R.28/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)