IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2011 / 7TH MAGHA 1932 AR.No. 23 of 2010() -------------------------- APPLICANT ------------------ WOMEN EMPOWERNMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE OF INDIA, REPRESNTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. OPPOSITE PARTIES/ ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY, GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, RED CROSS ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KHRWS, GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH&WE THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ A.R.No.23 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The applicant, the Women Empowerment and Human Resource Development Centre of India, a Society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 entered into a contract with the opposite parties for construction of a new payward block of KHRWS at Taluk Hospital, Nilambur, Malappuram District. The work is not completed. There is dispute as to the reason for not completing the work. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. 2. The Arbitration clause is contained in Annexure-3 Kerala Health Research and Welfare Society Specifications, which reads as follows: “13. Any dispute or difference that may arise between the Managing Director and the Contractor on account of the contract, shall at the instance of either party be referred to the Chairman, Kerala Health research and Welfare Society, whose A.R.No.23 OF 2010 2 decision given in writing shall be final conclusive and binding. The Managing Director may at his discretion delegate in writing, to any of his subordinates any of his powers regarding these specifications.” 3. The applicant sent Annexure A7 notice dated 13th May, 2008 to the second respondent calling upon the second respondent to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the disputes and differences between the parties, invoking the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In Annexure A8 reply, the second respondent directed the applicant to resume the work. The matter was not referred to arbitration. Hence, the applicant has preferred this Arbitration Request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have no objection to appoint the Chairman of KHRWS as the Arbitrator. The applicant is also agreeable for the same. A.R.No.23 OF 2010 3 Accordingly, the Arbitration Request is allowed. The Chairman, KHRWS is appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms