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. 38 of 2008() ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M/S. TRAVANCORE GATE HOSPITALITIES PVT.LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOSEPH SAM JOSEPH AND HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE AT D2, NINA RESIDENCY, SASTHAMANGALAM, P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M/S.ATHAK PROPERITIES PVT.LTD.A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE JASVINDER SINGH, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT CONSTRUCTION HOUSE "H"24TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST), MUMBAI - 400052, INDIA. ADV. MR.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R1 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON 29/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.R.No.38 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. O R D E R 1.The parties to this arbitration request have a contract between them which contains an arbitration clause. The said Memorandum of Understanding provides for reference of disputes to a sole arbitrator. The petitioner contends that in spite of notice, the respondent has not agreed to further action in terms of the arbitration clause and hence, this request for appropriate measures. 2.The plea put forward by the respondent is that in the absence of any claim against the respondent upon the termination of the Memorandum of Understanding as stipulated in clause 10(b) thereof, there can be no arbitration. This AR38/2008 -: 2 :- contention would not stand because the termination of an agreement between the parties would not, by itself, determine the continuance of the arbitration agreement and a clause providing for arbitration would survive the termination of a contract since the disputes between the parties which arise out of the termination itself would be a matter for arbitration. This principle being well settled, including by the decision of the Apex Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., 2005(8) SCC 618, I do not find any ground to refuse the request of the petitioner. The provision for arbitration is that the arbitration shall be at Thiruvananthapuram. 3.Having regard to the nature of the transaction which predominantly is a dispute relatable to the property law and law of contracts and taking into consideration all relevant aspects for the purpose of appointment of an arbitrator, Sri.M.S.Mohana Chandran, District Judge (Retired), Karthika, Ammankovil Street, Thevally, Kollam – 691 009 is AR38/2008 -: 3 :- appointed as arbitrator. The venue of the arbitration shall be Thiruvananthapuram. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/270709 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.