P.K.RAMACHANDRAN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOCHI & A

AR/21/2011

AI Insights

The case involves a dispute over the renewal terms of a lease agreement between the petitioner, P.K. Ramachandran, and the respondents, which include the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi, and the Union of India. The lease was originally executed by the petitioner's late wife, and after her death, the petitioner, as the sole legatee, sought to resolve the dispute through arbitration as stipulated in the lease agreement. The respondents acknowledged the existence of an arbitration clause but did not appoint an arbitrator, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court of Kerala for this appointment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755992 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Arbitration Act, 1940
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: LALY VINCENT; P NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: K KURUP; S MANU; K DEEPA; K SURESH
• Keywords: Arbitration; Dispute resolution; Income Tax; Lease agreement
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" 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 2nd day of September, 2011 ORDER The wife of the petitioner leased out 1st Floor of the building called Asoka Building at Srampical Road, Kochi to the first respondent, as per Annexure-XX lease deed dated 1.7.1994. The lease was renewed subsequently. There is dispute between the parties as to what should be the rent to be paid after renewal of the lease from time to time. Correspondence followed. The matter was not settled. In the meanwhile, the wife of the petitioner died on 1.8.2010. According to the petitioner, he is the sole legatee of the estate of the deceased, as per the Will executed by her. The prayer in the Arbitration Request is to appoint an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents with respect to Annexure-XX agreement. 2. Annexure-XX agreement contains an arbitration clause, which reads as follows: A.R.No.21 OF 2011 2 “It is hereby expressly agreed that if at any time there arises any dispute, doubt, difference or question with regard to the interpretation or meaning of any terms and conditions of this demise or in respect of the rights, duties and liabilities of the parties hereto or in any way touching or arising out of these presents or otherwise in relation to the premises then every such dispute, difference doubt or question (except the decision whereof is therein expressly provided for) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, (Dept. of Revenue and Insurance) Government of India or if he be unable or unwilling to act, then of an Officer appointed by him in this behalf and the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this deed, and the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modifications or re-enactments thereof and the rules made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply to such arbitration and this deed shall be deemed to be a submission to arbitration within the meaning of the said Act.” 3. The petitioner sent a notice dated 4.1.2011 to the first respondent requesting the first respondent to appoint an arbitrator as provided in the arbitration clause in the agreement. No reply was sent to Annexure-XIX notice. In Annexure XIX notice, it was stated thus: “It is therefore requested that you shall take steps to refer the disputes in connections with the same to the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of revenue and Insurance), Government of India and request him to enter upon reference and to decide the disputes between the parties. In case he is A.R.No.21 OF 2011 3 unwilling to act as an arbitrator he may be requested to appoint an officer in that behalf. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this notice. If the decision to refer the dispute as requested above is not taken within the aforesaid time, we will consider that you have forfeited your right to refer the disputes under the above the said clause and we will have to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for appointment of sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. This letter may be taken as a request for reference of the dispute for arbitration as provided under Clause of the agreement 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 is dispute as to the rate of enhanced rent to be paid and the quantum of enhancement. In paragraph 8 of the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated thus: “8. Regarding the averments in the Arbitration Request, it is submitted that as per the agreement dated 01.07.1994 between the parties, it is agreed that any dispute arisen between the parties shall be referred to an Arbitrator. Since no arbitrator has been appointed, this Hon'ble Court may appoint an Arbitrator.” 5. In the circumstances, it is necessary to appoint an Arbitrator. Sri.N.Sukumaran, Senior Advocate (Retired District A.R.No.21 OF 2011 4 Judge) is appointed as the Arbitrator as agreed by the learned counsel for both sides, to resolve the disputes between the parties touching upon and in respect of Annexure-XX agreement. The arbitrator would be free to fix the arbitration fee. The Arbitration Request is disposed of as above. . K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms "