M/S. INKEL LIMITED v. M/S. MANSIONS
Court: High Court of Kerala
Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Kerala judgment dated 2026-03-25. M/S. INKEL LIMITED v. M/S. MANSIONS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
A. R. No. 245 of 2024 1 2025:KER:15667 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V. M. TH TUESDAY, THE 18 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 29TH MAGHA, 1946 AR NO. 245 OF 2024 PETITIONER M/S. INKEL LIMITED AGED 33 YEARS REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATION) DOOR NO. 7/473 ZA- 5&6, AJIYAL COMPLEX, POST OFFICE ROAD, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682030 BY ADVS. AMITH KRISHNAN H. P. DEVIKRISHNA GAYATHRI C. H. ANNA MARY MATHEW B. G. HARINDRANATH (SR. ) RESPONDENTS 1 M/S. MANSIONS RAGHU BHAVAN, TAGORE NAGAR, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014 2 COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED 9TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682011 A. R. No. 245 of 2024 2 2025:KER:15667 BY ADVS. 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. VARGHESE (SR. )(K/000208/1974) THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18. 02.
2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A. R. No. 245 of 2024 3 2025:KER:15667 O R D E R The petitioner has filed this Arbitration Request invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking to appoint an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The petitioner entered into Annexure A1 consultancy nd contract dated 08. 07. 2019 with the 2 respondent, Cochin Smart Mission Ltd. , for the project “Extension of Cancer Specialty Block for General Hospital, Ernakulam under Smart City Mission, General Hospital, Ernakulam. ” In furtherance thereof, petitioner invited tenders vide Annexure A2, and the st 1 respondent placed a bid. Being the successful bidder, st Annexure A3 letter of acceptance was issued to the 1 respondent and Annexure A4 agreement was executed with st the 1 respondent.
Later disputes arose between the st petitioner and 1 respondent and a reference was made to the Dispute Redressal Committee which rendered Annexure A5 . st The 1 respondent was not agreeable to Annexure A5 and hence it invoked the arbitration clause viz, Clause 25 of Annexure A4 vide Annexure A6. The relevant arbitration clause A. R. No. 245 of 2024 4 2025:KER:15667 envisaged a unilateral appointment of the Arbitrator by the Managing Director. As per the dictum in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) a joint venture company [2024 SCC Online SC 3219] clauses enabling unilateral appointment of Arbitrators are invalid. Hence this Arbitration Request invoking Section 11 of the Act. st 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 respondent.
Averments in the Arbitration Request have been controverted therein and in paragraph 10 thereof, it has been stated that the relevant clause for appointment of the Arbitrator as per the Construction Contract Agreement is Clause 25 of ‘General Conditions of Contract’ which forms part of Annexure A4 ‘Construction Agreement’ as stated in Clause 4 (viii) of the said agreement and not in the tender document referred to under Annexure A2. The extract of the General Conditions of Contract containing Clause 25 regarding the Settlement of Disputes and Arbitration has been produced as Annexure R1 (f). It is further stated in the counter affidavit st that the 1 respondent is “agreeable for appointment of an impartial Arbitrator by this Hon’ble Court with reference to all st nd disputes between the petitioner herein, 1 respondent and 2 A. R. No.
245 of 2024 5 2025:KER:15667 respondent under Annexure A4 Construction Agreement and Annexure R1 (a) Tripartite Agreement to Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of all disputes in terms of Annexure A6 notice and Annexure R1(e) notice. ” No reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the said counter affidavit by the st nd 1 respondent. The 2 respondent has not filed any counter-affidavit or objection to the prayers sought in the Arbitration st Request or to the counter-affidavit filed by 1 respondent. 4. Heard Sri. B. G. Harindranath, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri. Amith Krishna Advocate for the petitioner, st Sri. Ranjith Varghese, Advocate for the 1 respondent and nd Smt. M. U. Vijayalakshmi Advocate for the 2 respondent. st 5. I note that the petitioner and the 1 respondent are at ad idem regarding the existence of a clause binding them to arbitrate the disputes and differences arising between them under Annexure A2 and Annexure A4.
They are also in unison regarding the due invocation of the arbitration clause vide Annexure A6. Hence, I deem it fit and proper to allow the Arbitration Request and to appoint a retired District Judge from the panel of Arbitrators maintained by this Court as the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes/differences between the st petitioner and the 1 respondent under Annexures A2 and A4. A. R. No. 245 of 2024 6 2025:KER:15667 As regards Annexure A1 consultancy agreement between the nd petitioner and the 2 respondent is concerned, the same does not contain an arbitration clause. Further the Arbitration Request does not state that any dispute or difference exists nd between the petitioner and the 2 respondent. Moreover the Arbitration Request does not reveal that the dual test for compelling a non signatory to arbitration proceedings as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel v. Jyotrindra S Patel [(2025) 2 SCC 147] has been nd satisfied as regards the 2 respondent.
Hence, arbitration under Annexure A2/A4 can only be between the petitioner and st st the 1 respondent. Though the 1 respondent has along with the counter affidavit produced a tripartite agreement (Annexure R1(a)) and a notice of invocation (Annexure R1(e)) nd issued to the 2 respondent, there is no invocation of Section st nd 11 by the 1 respondent. Hence, the mandates to direct the 2 respondent to join in as a party to the arbitration proceedings sought vide this Arbitration Request are not seen met. Accordingly, this Arbitration Request stands allowed as follows : (i) Sri. S. Jagadees (retired District Judge), ‘Thoppil House’, A. C. George Lane, Unichira, A. R. No. 245 of 2024 7 2025:KER:15667 Thrikkakara P. O. , Ernakulam, is nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that st have arisen between the petitioner and the 1 respondent under Annexure 2 and Annexure 4.
(ii) The learned Arbitrator may entertain all disputes/issues between the parties in connection with the said agreement, including questions of arbitrability, jurisdiction and limitation, if any, raised by the parties. (iii) The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator within ten days from today and obtain a Statement of Disclosure from the learned Arbitrator as stipulated under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act. (iv) Upon receipt of the Disclosure Statement, the Registry shall issue to the learned Arbitrator a certified copy of this order with a copy of the Disclosure Statement appended. The Original of the Disclosure Statement shall be retained in Court. (v) The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be A. R. No. 245 of 2024 8 2025:KER:15667 governed by the Fourth Schedule of the Act. Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V. M. JUDGE smm 2025:KER:15667 APPENDIX OF AR 245/2024 ANNEXURES A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSULTANCY CONTRACT DATED 08. 07.
2019 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER DOCUMENT FLOATED BY THE PETITIONER A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED 11. 10. 2019 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PURSUANT TO THE BID NO. 46/GH-CSML/INKEL/2019-20 DATED 05. 11. 2019 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE DATED 07. 10. 2024 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04. 11. 2024 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT GIVING NOTICE FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR ANNEXURES True copy of statement filed before the Writ Court True copy of letter dt. 22. 09. 2023 True copy of letter dt. 21. 02. 2024 True copy of the Notice for Arbitration issued by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent. True copy of clause 25 of General Conditions of Contract True copy of Tripartite Agreement entered into between the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent and the 2nd Respondent A. R. No. 245 of 2024 10 2025:KER:15667
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.