M/S.Spectrum Softtech vs T & T Engineering

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jun 30, 2023

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1360892

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1360892
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Jun 30, 2023
Case Number: OP(C)/1899/2017

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S.Spectrum Softtech

Respondent

T & T Engineering

Excerpt

.....application under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996, was allowed by the district court on its merits, against which, the first respondent filed a review petition instead of filing an appeal under section 37 of the said act. it is against that order, the first respondent came up under article 227 of the constitution. the remedy lies somewhere else. in fact, it is an unnecessary petition and liable to be dismissed. i do so. the original petition is dismissed. sd/- p.somarajan judge msp appendix of op(c) 1899/2017 petitioner exhibitsexhibit p1 true copy of the order 18.12.2013 in o.p.(arb)no. exhibit p2 true copy of i.a no. 29/2014 in o.p.(arb)no. exhibit p3 true copy of the order dated 19.02.2014 in i.ano. 29/2014 in o.p.(arb)no. 1087/2010 on the fileexhibit p4 true copy of the order dated 28.06.2014 in o.p. exhibit p5 true copy of the b-diary proceedings in o.p. exhibit p6 true copy of i.a. no. 5597/2014 in r.p. no.5/2014in o.p.(arb)no. 1087/2010 on the file of the iind exhibit p7 true copy of the counter affidavit in i.a.no. judge, ernakulam. exhibit p8 true copy of the receipt dated 25.06.2016, issued by the head clerk, the iind addl.district judge, exhibit p9 true copy of the letter dated 27.06.2016 issued by the petitioner's counsel to the 1st respondent and its counsel.exhibit p10 true copy of the post receipt dated 28.06.2016, exhibit p10 (a) true copy of the post receipt dated 28.06.2016, exhibit p11 true copy of the r.p. no. 5/2014 in o.p. exhibit p12 true copy of the counter affidavit filed by the1st respondent to r.p. no. 5/2014 in o.p. exhibit p13 true copy of the order dated 27.05.2017, in r.p. no. 5/2014 in o.p.(arb)no.1087/2010 on the file

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27-05-2017 IN R.P.NO.5/2014 IN O.P.(ARB) PETITIONER: M/S.SPECTRUM SOFTTECH SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., MAHAKAVI G. ROAD, COCHIN- 682 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SMT.BABY SONIA SRI.GENS GEORGE ELAVINAMANNIL SRI.JACOB TOMLIN VARGHESE SMT.NEVIS CASSANDRA L CAXTON LORETTA
RESPONDENTS: 1 T & T ENGINEERING, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, TOGI MATHEW,THALIYATH CHAMBERS, IYYATIL JUNCTION,ERNAKULAM - 682 011. *2 M/S. KUMAR GROUP TOTAL DESIGNERS, * M/S. KUMAR GROUP TOTAL DESIGNERS, 30/1156, THEKKADATH, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, VYTILLA HUB, VYTILLA, KOCHI - 682019) IT IS RECORDED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS IS THE FRESH ADDRESS OF R2 VIDE ORDER DATED 22/08/2017 IN I.A.NO. 1445/2017) *R2 IS DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 01.11.2017 IN I.A.NO. 1873/2017) SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.RAHUL VARGHESE SRI.K.L.VARGHESE (SR.) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was allowed by the District Court on its merits, against which, the first respondent filed a review petition instead of filing an appeal under Section 37 of the said Act. It is against that order, the first respondent came up under Article 227 of the Constitution. The remedy lies somewhere else. In fact, it is an unnecessary petition and liable to be dismissed. I do so. The original petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1899/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1               TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 18.12.2013 IN O.P.(ARB)NO.
EXHIBIT P2               TRUE COPY OF I.A NO. 29/2014 IN O.P.(ARB)NO.
EXHIBIT P3               TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2014 IN I.A

NO. 29/2014 IN O.P.(ARB)NO. 1087/2010 ON THE FILE

EXHIBIT P4               TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2014 IN O.P.
EXHIBIT P5               TRUE COPY OF THE B-DIARY PROCEEDINGS IN O.P.
EXHIBIT P6               TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 5597/2014 IN R.P. NO.5/2014

IN O.P.(ARB)NO. 1087/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE IIND EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.NO. JUDGE, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.06.2016, ISSUED BY THE HEAD CLERK, THE IIND ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.06.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S COUNSEL TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS COUNSEL.

EXHIBIT P10              TRUE COPY OF THE POST RECEIPT DATED 28.06.2016,
EXHIBIT P10 (A)          TRUE COPY OF THE POST RECEIPT DATED 28.06.2016,
EXHIBIT P11              TRUE COPY OF THE R.P. NO. 5/2014 IN O.P.
EXHIBIT P12              TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE

1ST RESPONDENT TO R.P. NO. 5/2014 IN O.P. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2017, IN R.P. NO. 5/2014 IN O.P.(ARB)NO.1087/2010 ON THE FILE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties M/S.Spectrum Softtech vs T & T Engineering Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan