LAWS(KER)-2019-1-24

KURIEN GEORGE Vs. RENJITH T MATHEW

Decided On January 10, 2019
Kurien George Appellant
V/S
Renjith T Mathew Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non Resident Indians yearn to build houses in their home State. They become crestfallen when their venture does not shape well. The mal-construction of a house is alleged in the instant case. The appellants are the owners and the respondent is the architect.

(2.) The dispute between the appellants and the respondent in regard to the construction of a house required to be resolved by arbitration by virtue of the Consultancy Agreement executed amongst them. Clause 35 thereof is extracted below:

(3.) The parties are free to agree on a procedure for appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ['the Act' for short] which is Clause 35 in the instant case. There is no case that the appellants have failed to act as required under that procedure as per Section 11(6) of the Act since they did appoint an arbitrator. Section 11(5) of the Act also does not apply since the respondent has waived his right to object to the choice of the arbitrator in view of Clause 35 of the Consultancy Agreement. The mandate of Mr M.C.Mathew as an arbitrator has terminated since he has 'withdrawn from his office' by letter dated 12.8.2014 almost two years after his appointment. We cannot appreciate the contention of the respondent that Mr M.C.Mathew has refused to accept the arbitratorship and hence no withdrawal from office occurred.