Ar/21/2011 Of P.k.ramachandran v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kochi & A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 AR.No. 21 of 2011() ------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------------------- P.K.RAMACHANDRAN, DEEPA MANDIR, KARUVELIPADY, KOCHI-682 005. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) SRI.K.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KERALA, CENTRA REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MATTANCHERRY-682 002. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. ADV. SMT.LALY VINCENT, CGC FOR R3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R1 TO 3 THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- A.R.No.21 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd] day of September, 2011 ORDER The wife of the petitioner leased out 1[st] Floor of thebuilding called Asoka Building at Srampical Road, Kochi tothe first respondent, as per Annexure-XX lease deed dated1.7.1994. The lease was renewed subsequently. There isdispute between the parties as to what should be the rent tobe paid after renewal of the lease from time to time.Correspondence followed. The matter was not settled. Inthe meanwhile, the wife of the petitioner died on 1.8.2010.According to the petitioner, he is the sole legatee of theestate of the deceased, as per the Will executed by her. Theprayer in the Arbitration Request is to appoint an arbitrator toresolve the disputes between the petitioner and therespondents with respect to Annexure-XX agreement. 2. Annexure-XX agreement contains an arbitrationclause, which reads as follows: “It is hereby expressly agreed that if atany time there arises any dispute, doubt,difference or question with regard to theinterpretation or meaning of any terms andconditions of this demise or in respect of therights, duties and liabilities of the partieshereto or in any way touching or arising out ofthese presents or otherwise in relation to thepremises then every such dispute, differencedoubt or question (except the decisionwhereof is therein expressly provided for) shallbe referred to the sole arbitration of theSecretary, Ministry of Finance, (Dept. ofRevenue and Insurance) Government of Indiaor if he be unable or unwilling to act, then ofan Officer appointed by him in this behalf andthe decision of the arbitrator shall be final andbinding on the parties to this deed, and theprovisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or anystatutory modifications or re-enactmentsthereof and the rules made thereunder for thetime being in force shall apply to sucharbitration and this deed shall be deemed tobe a submission to arbitration within themeaning of the said Act.” 3. The petitioner sent a notice dated 4.1.2011 to the first respondent requesting the first respondent to appoint anarbitrator as provided in the arbitration clause in the agreement.No reply was sent to Annexure-XIX notice. In Annexure XIXnotice, it was stated thus: “It is therefore requested that you shalltake steps to refer the disputes in connectionswith the same to the Secretary, Ministry ofFinance (Department of revenue andInsurance), Government of India and requesthim to enter upon reference and to decide thedisputes between the parties. In case he is 3. The petitioner sent a notice dated 4.1.2011 to the first respondent requesting the first respondent to appoint anarbitrator as provided in the arbitration clause in the agreement.No reply was sent to Annexure-XIX notice. In Annexure XIXnotice, it was stated thus: “It is therefore requested that you shalltake steps to refer the disputes in connectionswith the same to the Secretary, Ministry ofFinance (Department of revenue andInsurance), Government of India and requesthim to enter upon reference and to decide thedisputes between the parties. In case he is unwilling to act as an arbitrator he may berequested to appoint an officer in that behalf.The same shall be done within a period of onemonth from the date of receipt of this notice. Ifthe decision to refer the dispute as requestedabove is not taken within the aforesaid time, wewill consider that you have forfeited your right torefer the disputes under the above the saidclause and we will have to approach theHon'ble High Court of Kerala for appointment ofsole arbitrator to resolve the disputes betweenthe parties. This letter may be taken as arequest for reference of the dispute forarbitration as provided under Clause of theagreement dated 01.07.1994.” 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to certain correspondence whereby,willingness to enhance the rent was expressed. But there isdispute as to the rate of enhanced rent to be paid and thequantum of enhancement. In paragraph 8 of the statement filedon behalf of the respondents, it is stated thus: “8. Regarding the averments in theArbitration Request, it is submitted that as perthe agreement dated 01.07.1994 between theparties, it is agreed that any dispute arisenbetween the parties shall be referred to anArbitrator. Since no arbitrator has beenappointed, this Hon'ble Court may appoint anArbitrator.” 5. In the circumstances, it is necessary to appoint an Arbitrator. Sri.N.Sukumaran, Senior Advocate (Retired District A.R.No.21 OF 2011 Judge) is appointed as the Arbitrator as agreed by the learnedcounsel for both sides, to resolve the disputes between theparties touching upon and in respect of Annexure-XXagreement. The arbitrator would be free to fix the arbitrationfee. The Arbitration Request is disposed of as above.. cms K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.