Judgment · High Court · 2008
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
-2-entitled for compensation since damages have been sustained by himdue to the acts of the respondents. Noticing that nothing has beenforthcoming the applicant on 18-9-2007 sent a letter requesting forappointment of an arbitrator and Annexure VII is copy of that letter. There was no favourable response to Annexure VII and hence thearbitration request. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofthe respondents. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and those of Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned standing counsel for the Union Government. Havingconsidered the rival submissions of counsel on either side I am notprepared to say that the contention of the respondents that theapplicant's claim is highly belated and barred by principles of waiverand estoppel is totally without merit. In my opinion whether theclaims of the applicant are barred due to any legal principle itself canbe made an issue for arbitration and settled by the arbitrator.
I am not impressed by the contention that the arbitration request is notmaintainable because in the demand for arbitration the applicant hadnot stipulated the period of thirty days for appointment of arbitratorby the second respondent. All the legal contentions and thecontentions on merits raised by respondents can be raised by thembefore the arbitrator in which case the contentions will be enquiredinto and settled by the arbitrator. Both sides agree that a retiredDistrict Judge can be appointed as Arbitrator. Both sides agree that a -3-retired District Judge can be appointed as arbitrator. There is noobjection to the appointment of Sri. P.Gopakumaran Nair, Advocate, Retired District Judge, Kamalalayam, 5th Lane, Opp. Kaloor –Elamkulam Road, Ernakulam as the arbitrator. Hence allowing thearbitration request, Sri.P.Gopakurmaran Nair, Retired District Judge isappointed as arbitrator for resolving all the disputes between theparties.
The arbitrator will invite pleadings and the respondents arepermitted to raise all the contentions they have raised before this courtregarding the maintainability of the claim for arbitration before thearbitrator. Arbitrator will enquire into all the contentions and addressthem while passing the award. The arbitrator will enter on referenceat his earliest and will pass award in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)ksv/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 26 May 2008. The bench was PIUS C KURIAKOSE.
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.