IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 AR.No. 42 of 2008 ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOHN MATHEW ARAMBANKUDYIL HOUSE, KANNATHODU LANE, EDAPALLY POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 024. BY ADV. MR.T.N.MANOJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. LIS, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE NO. 3005, 12TH A MAIN, 8TH CROSS HALL, 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 038. 2. LIS, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, PALAKKAL COURT, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI – 682 035. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN, MR.ALAN PAPALI, MR.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA, MR.NISHIL.P.S. THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.R.No.42 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009. O R D E R 1.The petitioner has filed this arbitration request on the ground that there are disputes between him and the respondents. He states that he had invested an amount of Rs.50,000/- as equivalent to 80 units in a project of the respondents. This is evidenced by Annexure-A receipt. According to the petitioner, Annexure-B discloses an arbitration agreement. In fact, that document provides that in case of any dispute, a chartered accountant may be appointed as arbitrator and his/her decision shall be final and binding. The respondents, without disputing such a term in Annexure-B, have pleaded in their counter affidavit, that Annexure-B are the rules and AR42/08 -: 2 :- regulations governing the project of which the unit price is Rs.1,250/- and it does not relate to the scheme in which the petitioner had joined. It is also asserted that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. 2.As already noticed, even according to the petitioner, the payment of Rs.50,000/- by him, was for 80 units. This is evidenced by Annexure-A also. Obviously, therefore, the price per unit is Rs.625/- instead of Rs.1,250/-. Annexure-B, therefore, does not relate to the transaction of which the petitioner is a member. There is no contradicting pleading by the petitioner as against the plea of the respondents. 3.On submission on behalf of the respondents, it is recorded that the respondents are prepared to pay the petitioner the amounts entrusted. Obviously, the parties could negotiate and settle the matter. AR42/08 -: 3 :- The arbitration request fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/160709