Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
ARBITRATION REQUEST NO.43 of 2012 .3per clause '2.38' of the Special Conditions of the Contract, bysending Annexure-E letter dated 17.07.2012. While so, thepetitioner was let known by Annexure-F letter dated 19.08.2012sent by the Arbitrator nominated by the petitioner, that theArbitrators nominated by the parties could not arrive at aconsensus as to the Presiding Arbitrator, which made thepetitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PortTrust Submits that the action pursued by the respondent isperfectly within the four walls of law and is in conformity withthe terms of the agreement. The learned Standing Counselfurther submits that, by virtue of the enabling provision underAnnexure-A agreement, dispute, if any, has to be resolved bycausing the same to be considered by a panel of Arbitrators, asprovided under clause 2.38 of the Special Conditions of theContract. It is also conceded that both the parties havenominated their Arbitrators and in view of their failure in decidingappointment of the Presiding Arbitrator, the matter can bedisposed of by appointing the Presiding Arbitrator by this ARBITRATION REQUEST NO.43 of 2012 .4Court. 5. After hearing both the sides and after going through therelevant provisions of the agreement enabling appointment ofArbitrator, this Court finds that a 'Presiding Arbitrator' hasnecessarily to be appointed to resolve the stalemate. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. Justice K. John Mathew, aformer Judge of this Court, as the 'Presiding Arbitrator' forconducting and finalising the arbitration proceedings in terms ofAnnexure -A agreement and the relevant provisions of law. It isopen for the Arbitrator to fix the terms and it will be for theparties concerned to honour the same. 6. The Registry shall forward a certified copy of this orderalong with the full text of the Arbitration Request to the PresidingArbitrator forthwith. Arbitration request is disposed of accordingly.P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.