Skip to content


M/S. Team Sustains Limited Vs. CochIn Waste 2 Energy - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantM/S. Team Sustains Limited
RespondentCochIn Waste 2 Energy
Excerpt:
.....the same day passedthe following: ar.no. 40 of 2013 () --------------------- appendix petitioners annexures annexure a copy of the agreementdated274-2009 executed between the petitioner and the respondent annexure b copy of the termination letter dated187-2012 issued by the respondent to the petitioner annexure c copy of the letter of claim dated262-2013 issued by the petitioner to the respondent annexure d copy of the reply dated244-2013 issued by the respondent to the petitioner respondents annexures nil true copy p.a to judge smm v.chitambaresh,j.= = = = = = = = = = = arbitration request no.40 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = dated this the 12th day of march, 2014 order the engineering, procurement and construction agreement (annexure a) entered into between the petitioner.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF MARCH201421ST PHALGUNA, 1935 AR.No. 40 of 2013 () --------------------- PETITIONER -------------------------- M/S. TEAM SUSTAINS LIMITED TEAM HOUSE, PLOT NO.71, MRA KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS.SRI. SUNIL C C SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH RESPONDENT ---------------------------- COCHIN WASTE2ENERGY (P) LTD. P.B.NO.503, BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND COCHIN-682003, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R-R BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R-R BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R-R BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R-R BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS R-R BY ADV. SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1203-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSEDTHE FOLLOWING: AR.No. 40 of 2013 () --------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A COPY OF THE AGREEMENTDATED274-2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED187-2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE LETTER OF CLAIM DATED262-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE D COPY OF THE REPLY DATED244-2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM V.CHITAMBARESH,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = Arbitration Request No.40 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2014 ORDER

The engineering, procurement and construction agreement (Annexure A) entered into between the petitioner and the respondent provides for resolution of the dispute by arbitration. The relevant clause therein can profitably be extracted hereunder. "14.2 Arbitration (a) Procedure Subject to the provisions of Article 14.1, any Dispute which is not resolved amicably through mediation and conciliation shall be finally settled by binding arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). The arbitration shall be conducted by a sole arbitrator agreed upon by the parties. (b) Place of Arbitration The place of arbitration shall ordinarily be Ernakulam but by agreement of the parties, the arbitration hearings, if required, may be held elsewhere. ( c) English Language The request for arbitration, the answer to the request , the terms of reference, any written submissions, any orders and awards shall be in English and, if oral hearings take place, English shall be the language to be used in the hearings. The award shall be a speaking order. (d) Enforcement of Award. The parties agree that the decision or award resulting from arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties and shall be enforceable in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration Act. (e) Performance during Arbitration Pending the submission of and/ or decision on a Dispute and until the arbitration award is published, the A.R No.40 of 2013 2 parties shall continue to perform their respective obligations under this Agreement without prejudice to a final adjustment in accordance with such award." 2. There is a claim by the petitioner as well as a counter claim by the respondent and there is uniformity in their stand about the necessity for arbitration. An impartial arbitral tribunal has not hither to been appointed even though a demand in that regard was made by the petitioner.

3. I therefore appoint Mr. Justice P.R. Raman (Retired) as the sole arbitrator in terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator is free to fix his fee and also the venue of hearing. The Arbitration Request is allowed. V.CHITAMBARESH JUDGE smm


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //