BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

O.P.(Arb.) 276/2018

M.V.Anil Kumar : Petitioner

Vs.

D.R.Mithra & Anr. & Anr. : Respondents

OBJECTION filed by 1st respondents in the abovesaid case.

1. All the averments in the interim application are denied except that those are specifically
admitted hereunder.
2. The interim application is not maintainable either in law or facts of the case.
3. Para. 3 is not fully correct and hence denied. At the time of execution of agreement the 1 st
respondent sought for registering the agreement since the period mentioned in the said
agreement is for a period of five years. But the petitioner failed to register the said
agreement. Since the agreement is to be compulsorily registered, absence of the same will
nullify the legal sanctity of the agreement. In such instance the arbitration clause cannot be
invoked.
4. Para.4 is not fully correct and hence denied. The lack registration cuts the very root of the
terms mentioned in the agreement.
5. Para.5 to 8 are false and hence denied. The petitioner miserably failed in marketing the
product and due to poor marketing the good will earned by the 1 st respondent due to her
hard work has been affected. Till this date there is not even a single complaint against the
product of the 1st respondent. Inorder to escape from the huge liability caused to the 1 st
respondent due to the incapability and inefficiency of the petitioner a belated and frivolous
petition has been lodged. There is no bonafides from the part of petitioner. The petitioner
on 16/06/2017 had send a legal notice through one advocate Huck M.K. and has
categorically stated that there is no valid contract between the petitioner and the 1 st
respondent. As a result of the legal notice itself the petitioner had unilaterally withdrew from
the agreed terms. Further the said legal notice has never mentioned about the invoking of
arbitration proceedings and instead raise monetary claims. A copy of the same is produced
herewith. Further on 29/07/2017 the 1st respondent had send a legal notice admitting the
cancellation of the agreement. A copy of the same is also produced herewith. Inshort both
petitioner and 1st respondent withdrew from the so called agreement long back.
6. Para.9,10 & 11 are not fully correct and hence denied. Subsequently as an afterthought the
petitioner issued a legal notice on 24/01/2018 i.e after a period of 7 months from the date of
issue of 1st notice and that too suppressing the contents of the 1 st legal notice dated
16/06/2017. Once the so called agreement has been revoked by both the parties then there
is no meaning in further sending a new legal notice and thereby invoke the arbitration
clause. The attempt of 2nd legal notice by the petitioner is to somehow invoke the arbitration
clause and same is not legally sustainable. In the absence of any agreement the 1 st
respondent is free to enter into or market her product independently.
7. In the absence of any agreement and arbitration clause the petitioner cannot invoke the
arbitration clause. The present attempt is to somehow restrain the 1 st respondent from
producing and marketing her products and thereby pressurize the 1 st respondent to come to
the terms of the petitioner. The same is not the intent of Sec. 9 of the Act.
8. Due to the inefficiency and incapability the products produced by the 1 st respondent is now
dumbed in her go down unable to market the same before the expiry period. Once the
petitioner succeeds in restraining the supply of the products of the 1 st respondents then the
supply of products will blocked and thereby the same will exceed the expiry period and
 thereby huge loss will be incurred by the 1st respondent. This is to be seen in the light
wherein the 1st respondent had taken huge loan for the production of products believing the
words of the petitioner. The present attempt of the petitioner is to somehow push the 1 st
respondent, a woman entrepreneur in to destitute and vagrancy.
9. Presently the petitioner failed to prove prima facie case, the balance of convenience and
irreparable injury caused to the petitioner if the 1 st respondent market her product
subsequent to the revocation of the so called agreement.
10. No cause of action as alleged has occurred. The prayer of the petitioner will bring out the
malicious intention behind the filing of this interim application.
11. The prayers in the interim application are not allowable. This petition is a false, frivolous
and vexatious one and as such the interim application is liable to be dismissed with
compensatory cost to the 1st respondent.

Therefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept this objection and
dismiss the interim application with cost to the 1st respondent, in the interest of justice.

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2018.

1st Respondent

Unniraja T.I.
Advocate

All facts above are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief..

1st Respondent
BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT
COURT-IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

O.P.(Arb.) 276/2018

M.V.Anil Kumar : PETITIONER

V.

D.R.Mithra & Anr. : RESPONDENTS

OBJECTION FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

UNNIRAJA T.I.

Advocate for 1st respondent

LEX INTANGIBLE,
‘INDHU THULASI FLOOR’,
TC 27/1086(4),
Vanchiyoor P.O., TVPM-35
Ph:09947246269