IN THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, KOCHI-S Present Sri.PK.Mohandas, Sub Judge, Kochi Friday, the 20" day of June, 2014/ 30" Jyaishta, 1936. Ni 12 Plaintiff: Babu Coir Works. Thumpolly.P.0., Alleppey-688 008, Kerala, India. Represented by its Power of Attorney holder Eugin Johnkutty. oO iy) By Advs.Brijesh B.Tom & Vipin Varhese Defendants: 1. Indo Globe, Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd, 115/6, Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri Kuria Road, Aandheri(East), Mumbai-400 059. 2. Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd, Old#24/1604, Amalgam House, Plot No.9, W/Isiand Bristow Road, Cochin-680 003 s 3. M/s. AP. Moller-Maersk AS No.50 Explanadan,DK-1098, : Copenhagen K, Denmark represented by their agents Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd. Old #24/1604,Amalgam House, Plot No.9, W/Island, Bristow Road, Cochin-680 003. D1- Mathews K. Uthuppachan & Terry V. James D2 & D3 - V.M. Shyam Kumar This suit is filed Under Order VII Rule-1 Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. -. *°S This suit coming before me for hearing on 20.06.14 in presence meily ~. of counsel for both sides and having stood over for consideration to theJUDGMENT Matter referred for arbitration as per Order in 1.A.714/12. The parties are at liberty to appoint arbitrator as provided in clause 25 of Bill of Lading. Proceedings closed. Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of June, 2014. tie 2 P.K.MOHANDAS, SUB JUDGE Appendix:- Nil fra 2 SUB JUDGE Ikb Comp.By wt 0-8-bolia : SUB COURT: KOCr.t ee C4. 24h /Iy p AdW VM. SHezrerr dodooncey of" Le F= Th te ae AQ: F-1G charges ea harge on essa", pe 27- F146 deliveredon 9 8. (Cf|E SUB JUDGE, KOCHI-5 Present: ;, Sub Judge, Kochi-5 of June , 2014/30th Jyaishta, 1936. Friday, the 20th Indo Globe Shipping Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 059, By Age ate K. Uthuppachan rvices Pvt.Ltd, 115/6, Mittal ri Kuria Road,Andheri(East), Babu Coir Works. Alleppey-688 008, Attomey holder Eugi polly.P.O., la, India. Represented by its Power of Johnkutty. g 2. Maersk Line India PvBitd, Old #24/1604, ay Amalgam House, Plot No.9, Wellingdon Island, ™* ’ Bristow Road, Cochin-680 003. ve il eS A S 3. M/s. A.PMoller-M AS No.50 Explanaden,DK-1098, 9g y Copenhagen K,Der represented by their agents Maersk Line India Pvt.Ltd. Old #24/1604,Amalgam House, Plot No.9,W/Island, Bristow Road, Cochin-680 003. RI - Brijesh B-Tom R2 &R3 - VMShyam Kumar This Petition is filed Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. fe ey ‘This petition is coming before me for hearing on 20.06.14 in Presence of counsel for both sides and having stood over for| + -" "consideration to the same day the Court delivered the following:= Petition under section § of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Istdefendant. 2. The petitioner's cas@in briefis as follows: The plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of sum of Rs.34,24,271/- with interest and costs, This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the arbitration elause contained in the Multimodal Transport Contract. As Per section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court is to refer the parties to arbitration. The plaintiff has filed the suit in violation of the arbitration clause contained in the contract between the parties, So the petitioner praya for reference of the matter for arbitration and to stay the su't under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 3. Plaintiff filed objection on the petition stating as follows: As the 2nd and 3rd defendants are also parties to the suit the multimodal transport document alone is not the conditions governing the rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit. The Master Bill of Lading No.862463236 dated 12/9/2011 issued by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the 3rd respondent also covenants the rights and liabilities. The court can refer a suit for arbitration only if the party so applies not later than when submitting his |st statement of defence of the dispute. In this case the Ist defendant has already submitted his written Statement countering the averments in the plaint and hence he cannot “Tall back on Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and seck rofence under the same. So the petition is only to be dismissed.4. [have heard the counsel appearing for both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause 25 of the Bill of Lading any dispute arising under the contract is to be settled by arbitration. He submits that the parties are governed by the conditions of the Multimodal Transport Document. He refers to clause 25, which reads: "The contract evidence to hereby or contain the herein shall be governed by and construed according to Indian laws. Any difference of opinion or dispute thereunder can be settled by arbitration in India or place mutually agreed with each party appointing an arbitrator". 6. The plaintiff has filed the suit for realisation of compensation for the wrong delivery of the goods covered by the multimodal transport document without insisting for the presentation of the original bill of lading at the port of discharge at Houston. So the plaint claim is mainly based on the Multimodal Transport Document. ‘The main contention of the plaintiff is that the 2nd and 3rd defendants are also party to the suit and hence the civil court has jurisdiction to try the matter. A reading of the plaint shows that the 2nd defendant was acting, as an agent of the 3rd defendant in India, who was the carrier of the goods. Ist defendant is the freight forwarder who issued the bill of lading. It was with the Ist defendant the cargo was entrusted. So the relief is claimed mainly against the 1st defendant. As the document on which the plaintiff relies for his claim is the Multimodal Transport » Document, the parties are governed by the same. A reading of clause 25 © of the Document clearly shows that the dispute or difference of opinion“ under the document is to be set by arbitration. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation _ a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which js subject to an arbitration agreement to refer the parties to ambitration if @ party applies for the same not later than submitting his Ist statement of defence. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has got @ Gontention that as the Ist defendant has already filed a written statement disputing the plaint claim a petition under Section 8 cannot be entertained. A peruse! of the records shows that the Ist defendant has not filed written staterient in the suit. The Ist defendant entered appearance before the court on 23/5/2012 and the petition is seen filed Gm/21/6/2012, Only the 2nd and 3rd defendants have filed written statement in the suit. So the contention that the 1st defendant has put in his Ist statement of de: fence cannot be accepted. As the parties are claiming under the Multimodal Transport Document and they are bound by the terms and conditions contained therein, the plaintiff is bound by the arbitration clause also. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Aerens Gold Souk International Ltd, and others v. M/s.Parthas Textiles (2012 (1) KLT 515) has held thet when the requirements of Section 8 of the Act is satisfied. it is mandatory for the court to refer the Parties to arbitration. So, by virtue of clause 25, any dispute arising out of the contract is ‘0 be decided by arbitration in India. In the light of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and thé matter is liable to be stayed under Section 8 and is to be referred for arbitration.0S. bo/er S3UB COURT, KOCHI | cA teueds4 Applic: AN vem Application made on: 16 -¥-"4 Charges called on =. 9 -!% Charges on yp Gath Adgitional chargi called on Additional charge. ‘deposited on Gopyreadyon = 23-4 Appear on 24 -%-14 % * doliveredon : 2S. ((R