AMBIKA DEVI v. PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, A COMPANY
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADV. MR.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB. RESPONDENT: --------------------- PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.227, S.V.ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI-400 050, HAVING BRANCH OFFICE AT G-261, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, KOCHI-682 036. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH. THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.R.No.9 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009.
O R D E R The petitioner in this arbitration request had entered into a contract for allotment of apartment in a multi-storied apartment complex, to be constructed by the opposite party. Disputes have arisen between them. There is an arbitration agreement between the parties. It forms part of the contract document. The place of arbitration is fixed as Ernakulam. The arbitration has to be a sole arbitrator. The parties have not agreed on the identity of the arbitrator. The opposite party does not contest the existence of the arbitration agreement or that the disputes have arisen. Therefore, the parties have to go for arbitration. In taking the measure on failure of the parties to go for arbitration, the opposite party has, through learned counsel, submitted AR9/09 -: 2 :- that the nomination of a retired District Judge, a made by the petitioner, is not acceptable to hem. Having regard to the type of the contract, the amounts involved and the nature of disputes, I deem it appropriate to take the measure appointing Adv. Sri.P.R.Shaji possessing LL.M. in Arbitration, Mediation and Negotiation from Hamline University, USA, included in the panel of arbitrators maintained by this Court under orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, as sole arbitrator. It is hereby so done and the arbitration request is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/150709
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 14 Jul 2009. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
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.