M/S. INKEL LIMITED v M/S. MANSIONS and COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Syam Kumar V.M.
- Judgment Date
- 2025-02-18
- Court Decision / Holding
- Arbitration Request allowed; appoints Sri S. Jagadees (retired District Judge) as the sole Arbitrator to resolve disputes under Annexures A2 and A4. The Arbitrator may entertain all disputes, including questions of arbitrability, jurisdiction, and limitation. The Registry is to communicate the order to the Arbitrator within ten days, obtain a Disclosure Statement under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), and issue a certified copy of the order with the Disclosure Statement appended. Arbitrator’s fees to be governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
- Final Disposition
- Arbitration Request allowed; sole Arbitrator appointed; dispute scope limited to Annexures A2 and A4 with 2nd respondent not joined unless pursuant to a Tripartite Agreement; arbitration to proceed under the Fourth Schedule fees regime.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- M/S. INKEL LIMITED
Respondents
- M/S. MANSIONS
- COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • AMITH KRISHNAN H.
- • P.DEVIKRISHNA
- • GAYATHRI C.H.
- • ANNA MARY MATHEW
- • B.G.HARINDRANATH (SR.)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Ranjith Varghese
- • RAHUL VARGHESE(K/000851/2010)
- • SANTHA VARGHESE(K/000450/1976)
- • GEO KENNEDY K.(K/003663/2022)
- • RANJAN BABU JOSEPH(K/003379/2023)
- • K.L.VARGASE (SR.)(K/000208/1974)
Case Synopsis & Summary
M/S INKEL LIMITED filed AR 245/2024 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from the consultancy and construction contracts connected with the project titled Extension of Cancer Specialty Block for General Hospital, Ernakulam under the Smart City Mission. The petitioner had a consultancy agreement with the 2nd respondent (Cochin Smart Mission Ltd.) and, following tenders, a bid was won by the 1st respondent (MANSIONS). The tender documents (Annexure A2) and the Construction Agreement (Annexure A4) contained arbitration clauses, culminating in Annexure A6 invoking arbitration. The petitioner asserts a unilateral appointment provision in Annexure A4’s framework; the 1st respondent disputes this, arguing that the relevant arbitration clause is Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract (Annexure R1(f)) and that disputes between petitioner and 1st respondent are arbitrable, with the 2nd respondent either not a party to arbitration or only per tripartite arrangements. The court notes the petitioners and 1st respondent are in agreement on the arbitration clause’s existence and invocation, and that the 2nd respondent’s involvement is contested. The AR is allowed; a retired District Judge, Sri S. Jagadees, is appointed as the sole Arbitrator for disputes under Annexures A2 and A4, including questions of arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation, with costs governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act. The Registry will communicate and obtain disclosure statements as required under Section 11(8) and Section 12(1).
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- ad idem
- Dual test for compelling a non-signatory to arbitration (Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S Patel)
- Unilateral appointment of Arbitrator is invalid (Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV))
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends that there exists a binding arbitration clause between the petitioner and the 1st respondent under Annexures A2 and A4, with Annexure A6 invoking arbitration. It asserts that the 2nd respondent (Cochin Smart Mission Ltd.) does not bear an arbitration clause, and that the disputes are arbitrable between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. It relies on the principle that unilateral appointment by the Managing Director, as contemplated in Annexure A2/A4, is invalid in light of the controlling authority (Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV)). The petitioner seeks the Court to appoint a sole Arbitrator and to restrict the arbitration to the contracts in Annexures A2 and A4.
Contentions of Respondents
The 1st respondent contends that Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract (Annexure R1(f)) governs arbitration under Annexure A4 rather than the tender document; it supports appointment of an impartial arbitrator by the Court for all disputes, including the involvement of the 2nd respondent via a tripartite arrangement (Annexure R1(a) and Annexure R1(e)). It asserts that the 2nd respondent is not a party to the arbitration invoked under Annexure A2. The 2nd respondent not having invoked Section 11 is highlighted, and it is argued that disputes are primarily between the petitioner and the 1st respondent while possibly including the 2nd respondent per a separate Tripartite Agreement.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) | 2024 SCC Online SC 3219 | Positive | Cited as authority for invalidity of unilateral appointment of Arbitrators. |
| Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S Patel | [(2025) 2 SCC 147] | Mentioned Only | Referenced for the dual test for compelling a non-signatory to arbitration; not applied to the present case. |
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. INKEL LIMITED v M/S. MANSIONS and COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.