IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 AR.No. 56 of 2006() ------------------- APPLICANT: ---------------- THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MPEDA HOUSE COCHIN-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.SIMON JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SRI.MITHUN MARKOS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SRI.RAMASWAMY MUKUND, 11/2, SHER E PUNJAB CHS LTD., M.C. ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 093. 2. SRI.RAMASWAMY SAMPATH KUMAR, 11/2, SHE E PUNJAB CHS LTD., M.C. ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 093. 3. MS.SUBHADRA SAMPATH KUMAR, 11/2, SHER E PUNJAB CHS LTD., M.C. ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI-400 093. 4. M/S. SUDESH SEAFOODS LTD., PLOT NO.M34/2, MIDC IND.AREA P.B.NO.48, TALOJA, RAIGAD, MAHARASHTRA. BY THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- A.R. NO. 56 of 2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March , 2008 O R D E R Service on the fourth respondent is yet to be completed. It is seen that notice to the fourth respondent was issued by this court by registered post with Acknowledgment Due as early as on 23.11.2006. Notice was sent in the address of the fourth respondent shown in the Arbitration Clause itself and apparently it is full and correct address. I am of the view that there is justification for invoking proviso to sub rule 5 of Rule 9 of Order 5 of C.P.C. which corresponds to Rule 51 (2) of the High Court Rules. It is declared that the fourth respondent is duly served. Name of the fourth respondent is called. Absent. Set ex parte. 2. The applicant Marine Products Export Development Authority is an authority constituted under the Ministry of Commerce by the Marine Products Export Development Authority Act. Under a scheme formulated by the applicant to render A.R. No.56/2006 2 support for the promotion and establishment of projects for processing and export of marine products, the applicant participated in the equity capital of new companies at the request of promoters of the said companies. Ext.P1 Financial Collaboration Agreement executed for the purpose provided that the said promoters would buyback the equity shares on the expiry of a period of five years at an agreed price. The grievance of the applicant is that the promoters who are opposite parties in the Arbitration Request have not re-purchased the shares on the agreed price. Clause 10 of Ext.P1 Agreement contains a valid arbitration clause for referring differences and disputes arising between the parties to the arbitration. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause by issuing Ext.P3 letter and nominated their arbitrator and calling upon the opposite parties to appoint their arbitrator. There was no response from the respondents. Thus the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties have failed and in my opinion the applicant is justified in invoking the statutory appointment procedure. 2. The result is that the Arbitration Request will stand allowed. Sri.N.Sukumaran, retired District and Sessions judge is A.R. No.56/2006 3 appointed as arbitrator to settle the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents, details of which are given in Ext.P3 as well as in the Arbitration Request. The Arbitrator will adjudicate on the counter claims, if any, which may be raised by the respondents. The Arbitrator will enter on reference and pass his award at the earliest. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk