High CourtsSingle Bench

M/s Ibolt Communications (P) Ltd vs M/s Asset Enlive Owners Association

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0147

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sathish Ninan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(8), 12(1)
CASE NUMBER
Arbitration Request No. 36 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 407 words

Sathish Ninan, J

1.

Annexure A1 Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to installation of mobile Base Transmission Station on the roof top of the building belonging to the respondent. There has arisen disputes between the parties. Annexure A1 Agreement contains an arbitration clause providing for resolution of disputes between the parties by arbitration. Though request was made for appointment of an Arbitrator in terms thereof, the respondent has failed to co-operate. It is accordingly the Arbitration Request is stated to have been filed.

2.

Inspite service of notice on the respondent there is no appearance.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4.

The relevant clause in Annexure A1 Agreement stipulating for arbitration of disputes, reads thus:

“In the event of any controversy, dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with or in relation to this Agreement, the party aggrieved will notify the other party of the dispute(s) or differences with such party and both parties shall negotiate in good faith to settle the said disputes. In the event that the said disputes cannot be so settled by negotiation within 30 day of the said notice, such dispute or difference shall be settled as per the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The courts of Cochin shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising out of and touching and/or concerning this Agreement.”

5.

In the light of the above, there is no reason why an Arbitrator should not be appointed.

Accordingly, without prejudice to the rival contentions between the parties, the Arbitration Request is ordered as hereunder:

(a) Adv. Sri.Sameer C.N, Chemmattuvely, Nadakkav P.O, Udayamperoor, Ernakulam – 682 307, Mobile No. 9447609009, is provisionally nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties arising out of Annexure A1.

(b) A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Arbitrator by the Advocate of the applicant within a period of one week from today. A copy of the order shall also be forwarded to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Registry.

(c) The Arbitrator is requested to forward his statement of disclosure under Section 11(8) r/w Section 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(d) The registry shall place the disclosure statement before this Court, for confirmation of the appointment of the Arbitrator.

(e) The Arbitrator's fees shall be payable as per Schedule IV to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.