M/S EDASSERY AGENCIES represented by its proprietor Saju E.S. v. M/S KUNNATH PHARMACEUTICALS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Syam Kumar V.M.
- Judgment Date
- 2025-02-20
- Court Decision / Holding
- Arbitration Request is allowed; a retired District Judge, Smt. K.P. Indira, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes under Annexure-1; the arbitrator may decide jurisdiction, maintainability, arbitrability and limitation; the Registry must communicate the order and obtain a disclosure from the arbitrator under Section 11(8) and Section 12(1); the original disclosure is to be retained in court; arbitrator’s fees to be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
- Final Disposition
- Arbitration Request allowed; appointment of sole Arbitrator; arbitration to proceed; the arbitrator to decide on jurisdiction/arbitrability/maintainability/limitation; disclosure to be filed; fees governed by the Fourth Schedule.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S EDASSERY AGENCIES represented by its proprietor SAJU E.S.
Respondents
- M/S KUNNATH PHARMACEUTICALS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
- LISSA ABRAHAM
- LIDIYA ABRAHAM
- LIDA ABRAHAM
- DR. LIYA ABRAHAM
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SABU FRANCIS C.T. APPACHEN
Counsels for Respondents
- • M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
- • K.JOHN MATHAI
- • JOSON MANAVALAN
- • KURYAN THOMAS
- • PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
- • RAJA KANNAN
- • IZHAR MOHAMMED
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is an arbitration proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by M/S Edassery Agencies (the applicant) against M/S Kunnath Pharmaceuticals Administrative Office and its heirs (the respondents) arising from an agreement dated 10.03.2017 appointing the applicant as super stockist for the state. After the death of the proprietor in 2020, the respondents’ legal heirs disputed the claimed debt; Annexures show an alleged debt of Rs. 61,75,500 and a corresponding debt acknowledgment by the 3rd respondent. The applicant issued notices and invoked arbitration by Annexure 12, nominating an arbitrator; some respondents accepted the nomination, others rejected it, alleging that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed. The court held that arbitration is the agreed mode of resolution and that the essential elements of an arbitration agreement are satisfied, citing precedents. It emphasized that parties cannot unilaterally appoint an arbitrator and that the arbitrator may decide on jurisdiction, arbitrability, maintainability and limitation. The court ultimately allowed the AR 219/2024, appointing Smt. KP Indira, Retired District Judge, as sole arbitrator, with the arbitrator empowered to adjudicate all disputes; directions were issued for disclosure and fee governance under the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- ad idem
- Arbitration agreement elements: presence of a present or future difference, intention to settle by a private tribunal, written agreement, and parties being in ad idem
- Unilateral appointment of an arbitrator is not permissible
- Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to decide on jurisdiction/arbitrability/maintainability and limitation
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The Applicant contends that the Annexure 1 arbitration clause expressly provides for resolution of any disputes by arbitration, with venue fixed at Ernakulam. The death of the proprietor did not extinguish the contract or the obligation to adjudicate disputes through arbitration. The debt alleged against the 1st respondent is evidenced by Annexures 4, 5 and 12–21; invocation of arbitration was made by issuing Annexure 12, and the nominated arbitrator’s appointment was not challenged in law until the respondents raised objections that the arbitrator was unilaterally appointed. The essential elements of an arbitration agreement are satisfied (existence of a difference, intention to settle by a private tribunal, written agreement, ad idem). The applicant argues that the respondents cannot seek to stall arbitration by unilateral appointment and that all pleadings and objections may be raised before the arbitrator under the Act (as reinforced by SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning). It seeks appointment of a retired District Judge as sole arbitrator and that the dispute be referred to arbitration under Section 11.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that there was no valid invocation of arbitration and challenge the asserted debt; they maintain that the arbitration clause has not been properly invoked and that the arbitrator’s appointment was unilateral. They dispute the authenticity of Annexure 4 (acknowledgment of debt) and deny receipt of the invocation notice to all respondents. They contend that mandatory notices were not properly issued and that the arbitration process should not proceed without a proper consensus. They also argue that the nominated arbitrator was not validly appointed and request dismissal of the AR. They urge that the disputes be left to the courts or to be redefined in accordance with law.
Cited Precedents (5)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects | 2017 KHC 4463 | Positive | Cited to support that unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator by a party is not permissible. |
| Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC (India) Ltd. | 2019 KHC 7173 | Positive | Cited for the principle that unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not allowed. |
| Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. M/s.ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) | 2024 KHC Online 6620 | Positive | Cited as supportive authority on arbitration proceedings and the invalidity of unilateral appointment. |
| SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Krish Spinning | (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1754 | Positive | Cited to affirm that the Arbitrator can decide questions of jurisdiction/arbitrability/maintainability and that contentions can be kept open for the arbitrator to decide. |
| Babanrao Rajaram Pund v. Samarth Builders & Developers and another | (2022) 9 SCC 691 | Positive | Cited regarding the essential elements required to constitute an arbitration agreement. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S EDASSERY AGENCIES represented by its proprietor Saju E.S. v. M/S KUNNATH PHARMACEUTICALS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.