✦ Kerala High Court · 10 Jan 2007

P.R.SREERAM v. S.S.BALASUNDARI

AR No. 3 of 2006V K BALI

Case at a glance

Judgment

V.K. BALI, C.J. ------------------------------- A.R.No.3 of 2006 -------------------------------Dated, this the 10th day of January, 2007ORDERV.K.Bali,C.J.(Oral)The prayer in this application is for appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner andrespondents are partners of a firm in the name and style“Peeveear Medical Agencies”. The said firm was carrying onbusiness as pharmaceutical distributors and dealers in allvarieties of medicines and allied goods. The firm was started bylate P.R.Venkiteswaran who is the husband of the firstrespondent and by the second respondent who are brothers. Subsequently the business was reconstituted in the year 1995with the petitioner and respondents 2, 3 and 4 and lateP.R.Venkiteswaran who passed away. Thereafter the firstrespondent expressed her desire to join the business as partnerand accordingly she was admitted as a partner and continued thebusiness. Whereas one party appointed the first Arbitrator, A.R.No.3/20062the second party appointed a second Arbitrator. Thereafter, even after 30 days from the dates of their respectiveappointments, first and second Arbitrators have failed to agreewith the third Arbitrator. 2. Even though there was representation for therespondents on the last date of hearing, no one has chosen toappear today. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that he has information from the respondents that theywould not object to the appointment of Justice K.P.RadhakrishnaMenon, a former Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator inthis case. Even otherwise, as no representation has been madeon behalf of the respondents and the request has not beenopposed, the same has to be allowed. This Court appointsJustice K.P.Radhakrishna Menon, a former Judge of this Court, as the sole Arbitrator to render an award in accordance with law. V.K. BALI,CHIEF JUSTICE. vns A.R.No.3/20063

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Kerala High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AR No. 3 of 2006). ← Search more judgments