BIJU XAVIER Vs. CHRISTY FERNANDEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners and the Respondent entered into Annexure A1 agreement dated 26.10.2007 in respect of the conduct of a floating restaurant under the name and style "M/s. Quality Inn", in the backwaters of Marine Drive, Ernakulam. Clause (1) of the agreement shows that it was for a period of eleven months. Clause (15) of the agreement provides that the period of eleven months could be extended on mutually agreed terms. It is stated that even before the expiry of the period of eleven months, difference of opinion arose between the parties. According to the Petitioners, they could not conduct the restaurant and they surrendered possession in May, 2008. The agreement provides for a security deposit of <span style="font-family:Rupee Foradian"> '</span> 15 lakhs to be made by the Petitioners. Clause (18) of the agreement provides for return of the security deposit on termination of the agreement. The Petitioners state that on termination of the agreement, the security deposit was not returned to them. Notices were issued to the Respondent. The Petitioners filed O.P.(Arb.) No. 1903 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for interim measures. It is stated that later O.P.(Arb.) No. 1903 of 2008 was dismissed for default. Challenging the same, the Petitioners filed Arbitration Appeal No. 24 of 2010 before the High Court.

(2.) Clause (20) of Annexure A1 agreement contains the arbitration clause, which reads as follows:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent, it is contended that the Arbitration Request is not maintainable since complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the disputes. Therefore, it is contended that arbitration is not a feasible method of resolving the disputes. It is also contended that the questions involved in the case can be decided only by the Civil Court.