P.A. TO JUDGE v. CHITAMBARESH, J
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
The Original Petition is dismissed without prejudiceto the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ss. 9, 37(1)(a)
- Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 9
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 14
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2012/18TH ASHADHA 1934OP(C).No. 2180 of 2012 (O) --------------------------OP.(ARB) 49/2011 of DISTRICT COURT,THODUPUZHAPETITIONER(S):------------- BEROY MATHEWS,, AGED 44 YEARS S/O MATHAI, KIZHAKKEBHAGAM HOUSE, MARIKA P.O MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMARRESPONDENT(S):--------------1. LEELAMMA CHACKO, W/O CHACKO VARGHESE, THAZHATHETHOTTIYIL HOUSE GANDI NAGAR HOUSING COLONY EAST THODUPUZHA P.O IDUKKI 6855852. OMANA, W/O MOHANAN, KRISHANKRIPA HOUSE, EDAVETTY P.O EDAVETTY ROREST LAST, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT 6855883. SREEKANTH.R, KRSHNAKRIPA HOUSE, EDAVETTY P.O EDAVETTY FOREST LAST, THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT 685588 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2012, THE COURTON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C) NO. 2180/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT. P1TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION O.P NO 49/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT THODUPUZHAEXT. P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-12-2011 IN ARBITRATION OP NO 49/2011 OF DISTRICT COURT THODUPUZHAEXT. P3TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM REPORT FILED BY THE RECEIVER IN OP ARBITRATION NO 49/2012 DATED 11-02-2012EXT. P4TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO 135/2012 IN OP (ARBITRATION) NO 49/2011 OF DISTICT COURT THODUPUZHAEXT. P5TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO 135/2012 IN OP (ARBITRATION) NO 49/2012 OF DISTICT COURT THODUPUZHAEXT. P6TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 01-01-2009 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RATHEESH SANKAR EXT. P7TRUE COPY OF THE ODER IN I.A 135/2012 IN OP (ARB) 49/2011 OF DISTICTCOURT THODUPUZHA DATED 11-0 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A. TO JUDGE. V. CHITAMBARESH, J--------------------------------OP(C) NO. 2180 OF 2012------------------------------------Dated this the 9th day of July, 2012JUDGMENTThe court below has by Ext.P7 order issued certain directions to the Advocate Receiver appointed.
Operative part
The AdvocateReceiver was so appointed by Ext.P2 order in an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The order impugned is only an interim measure falling sub section (d) and (e) of section 9 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996. Such orders are very muchappealable under Section 37 (1) (a) of the said Act. 3. The Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thepetitioner can also call in aid the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay if any in filing theappeal.V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGEncd
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Original Petition is dismissed without prejudiceto the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss. 9, 37(1)(a); Arbitrationand Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14.
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.