IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 AR.No. 26 of 2008() ------------------- APPLICANTS --------------------------- 1. P.S.KRISHNA KUMAR, RAJEEVAM, T.R.S.NAIR ROAD, PERUNTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.PADMAJA, ARCHANA, SANKAR LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.MOHANKUMARI, T.C.XXVIII/155 (1), SREECHAKRAM, KARAYOGA MANDIRAM ROAD, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: OPPOSITE PARTY --------------------------- BHADRAKUMAR DAS, V.ALIAS VBK DAS, S/O.VELU PILLAI, VAISHNAVI, KARAYOGA MANDIRAM ROAD, KAITHAMUKKU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 24. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY FOR R1 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ A.R.No.26 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of of August, 2008 O R D E R The applicants and the opposite parties are the partners of a firm by name “Gems International” and this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration And Conciliation Act has been filed by the applicants seeking appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator for settling the disputes and differences of opinion which have arisen between them in respect of the partnership business, which has been carried on by them, pursuant to Annexure I. 2. The respondent has entered appearance before this court through Advocate Sri.Suman Chakravarthy. I have heard the submissions of Sri. K.B.Pradeeph, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Suman Chakravarty. Annexure I is admittedly the partnership deed and clause 22 therein is an arbitration agreement. Annexure II is the notice which was sent by the applicants invoking the arbitration clause so that the A.R.No.26/2008 2 disputes between the parties can be referred to arbitration. To Annexure - II, the respondent has sent Annexure III reply. On a reading of Annexure I and III, I am convinced that disputes have arisen between the parties and that they have not been resolved so far. I do not find any reason as to why arbitrator should not be appointed. I informed the counsel that I am inclined to allow the application appointing an arbitrator. The learned counsel submitted that in the event of this court became inclined to allow this application there will not be any serious objection in appointing Advocate Sri. Biju Balakrishnan, Near St.Mathews Church, Vennala P.O., Kochi 682 028, who belongs to Trivandrum, as the arbitrator. 3. Accordingly, allowing the arbitration request, I appoint Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, Advocate as arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties, which are subject matter of this writ petition and Annexure II. The arbitrator will enter on reference and make and publish his award at the earliest. If the arbitrator finds it necessary to seek service of Chartered Accountant or any other expert, he will have the liberty to do so. But, while identifying the Chartered Account or expert, he shall, A.R.No.26/2008 3 to the extent possible, do so on consensus between the parties. (PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE) dpk