Kerala High Court
Laly Joseph vs Chazhikattu Hospitals Private Limited on 24 June, 2025
AR No.15 of 2025
1
2025:KER:44852
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947
AR NO. 15 OF 2025
PETITIONER/:
LALY JOSEPH
AGED 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT SFS CARTLON, KOWDIAR P.O, ::: APPLICANT
AMBALAMUKKU KARA, KOWDIAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,
PIN - 695013
BY ADV SHRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH
RESPONDENT:
1 CHAZHIKATTU HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED
IX 139A, RIVER VIEW ROAD, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, DR. CHAZHIKATT STEPHEN STEPHEN, S/O. C.K. STEPHEN,
PIN - 685584
2 DR. CHAZHIKATT STEPHEN STEPHEN
S/O. C.K. STEPHEN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE,
MANAKAD ROAD, NEAR JAI RANI SCHOOL, THODUPUZHA P.O
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 685608
3 DR. JOSEPH STEPHEN
AGED 70 YEARS
CHAZHIKATTU HOUSE, MARIYIL KALUNKA BHAGOM, OLAMATTOM KARA,
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, PIN - 685584
4 BABY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, ARAYIDATHUPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004
BY ADVS.
SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
AR No.15 of 2025
2
2025:KER:44852
SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SHRI.HARIMOHAN
SMT.KOCHURANI JAMES
SHRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT. DHANYA SUNNY
SMT. ANN MILKA GEORGE
SMT.MERINE TOM
SHRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN
SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA
SHRI.SHINTO MATHEW ABRAHAM
SMT.LEAH RACHEL NINAN
SHRI.MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS
SHRI.KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL
SHRI.KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW
SMT.APARNNA S.
SHRI.ARUN JOSEPH MATHEW
SHRI.NOEL NINAN NINAN
SHRI.ADEEN NAZAR
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AR No.15 of 2025
3
2025:KER:44852
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2024
1. This is an Application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, to appoint an Arbitrator for
adjudication and determination of all disputes arising out of and
in respect of the claim of the Applicant pertaining to the
Annexure-1 Agreement.
2. Annexure-1 Agreement titled as “Investment Agreement” dated
27.10.2024 is executed between the Applicant and the
respondents 1 to 3. The Agreement was for the purchase of
100% equity shares of the 1st respondent company by the
Applicant from the respondents 2 & 3 for a total consideration
of Rs.170 Crores. As per the terms of the said Agreement, the
Applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.30 Crores as advance
consideration. Annexure-1 Agreement would indicate that the
Applicant had issued Cheque No.10196422 dated 27.10.2024
drawn on the Federal Bank, Pathadipalam branch in favour of
AR No.15 of 2025
4
2025:KER:44852
the 1st respondent and it is specifically stated that the said
Cheque shall be honoured on 28.10.2024 and that the advance
consideration shall be treated as paid only upon realisation of
the cheque amount. Clause 6 of Annexure-1 Agreement
provides for termination. It is specifically stated that the
Agreement shall automatically terminate if the advance
consideration, consideration or any part thereof is not paid to
the 1st respondent or the pre-existing shareholders to their
satisfaction within the respective timeline specified in the
Agreement and that the Agreement shall be terminated
immediately or at the option of the 1st respondent in the event
of any instrument issued by or on behalf of the investor to the
pre-existing shareholders or the 1st respondent is not honoured.
The pleadings would reveal that Cheque No.10196422 issued
by the applicant was not presented on 28.10.2024. The
respondents 1 to 3 entered into another agreement dated
30.10.2024 with the 4th respondent as a business transfer
AR No.15 of 2025
5
2025:KER:44852
agreement to sell the hospital belonged to the respondents 1 to
3. The Applicant filed O.S.No.305/2024 before the Munsiff’s
Court, Thodupuzha, seeking an injunction against alienation. It
is submitted by both sides that though a temporary injunction
against alienation was granted initially by the Munsiff’s Court,
the same was vacated later. It is seen that the Applicant filed a
Not Press Memo and as per the said Memo, the suit was
dismissed as Not Pressed as per the Judgment dated
17.12.2024. It is on record that the Applicant had approached
the Commercial Court, Ernakulam by filing M.A.(Arb.)
No.281/2024 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent
the respondents 1 to 3 from transferring the equity shares of the
1st respondent or its assets to anyone other than the applicant.
The Commercial Court, by a common order, dismissed
M.A.(Arb.) No. 281/2024 and I.A. No.2/2024 therein for interim
injunction, finding that the Applicant failed to prove a prima facie
AR No.15 of 2025
6
2025:KER:44852
case for the reliefs sought. The Commercial Court found that
the respondents 1 to 3 have been facing a financial crisis, which
was critical in nature to their business; that the terms of the
Agreement require payment of an advance amount of Rs.30
Crores and it was not honoured due to insufficient funds in the
Applicant’s account; that advance was a condition precedent
for the validity of the Agreement; that the claim of the Applicant
to enforce the Agreement lapse a foundational basis; and that
without the requisite payment, the Agreement stands
terminated according to its own terms undermining the
Applicant’s position. Thereafter, the Applicant has filed this
Arbitration Request seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator in
order to resolve the disputes arising out of the Annexure-1
Agreement. Even though the 4th respondent is not a party to the
Annexure-1 Agreement, the 4th respondent is impleaded as a
party to this Application on the ground that the 4th respondent
is an assignee of the respondents 1 to 3.
AR No.15 of 2025
7
2025:KER:44852
3. The Application is strongly opposed by the respondents. The
respondents 1 to 3 together and the 4th respondent separately
have filed Counter Affidavits.
4. The Applicant has filed Reply Affidavits to the Counter Affidavits
filed by the respondents.
5. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, Sri.
Joseph Kodianthara, instructed by Adv. Sri. Chandy Joseph,
the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri. Roshen D.
Alexander and the learned Senior Counsel for the 4th
respondent, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, instructed by Adv. Sri. Anil
Sebastian Pulickal.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant contended that
Annexure-1 Agreement contains an arbitration clause. There is
an arbitrable dispute between the applicant and the
respondents. The 4th respondent, though is not a party to
Annexure-1 Agreement, the 4th respondent is also bound by
Annexure-1 Agreement since the 4th respondent is an assignee
AR No.15 of 2025
8
2025:KER:44852
from the respondents 1 to 3. There is a specific clause in
Annexure-1 Agreement that the Agreement will bind and benefit
the parties and their respective heirs, administrators, executors
and assignees. The applicant has issued Annexure-3 Notice to
the respondents 1 to 3 expressing her intention to invoke the
arbitration clause in Annexure-1 Agreement. Since the 4th
respondent is an assignee of the respondents 1 to 3, the
Annexure-3 Notice is to be treated as Notice to the 4th
respondent also. In support of his contentions, the learned
Senior Counsel cited the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements
under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Stamp
Act, 1899 [(2024) 6 SCC 1] and Cox and Kings Limited v.
Sap India Private Limited & Anr. [(2025) 1 SCC 611], (herein
after referred to as ‘Cox and Kings II’), the decision of the Delhi
High Court in Nirmala Jain and others v. Jasbir Singh and
others [MANU/DE/3381/2018], the Division Bench decision of
AR No.15 of 2025
9
2025:KER:44852
Karnataka High Court in Devtree Corp. LLP v. Bhumika North
Gardenia [MANU/KA/3008/2024], the decision of the Calcutta
High Court in Basant Kumar Khemka and Others v. City
Shoppe Estates Limited [MANU/WB/1596/2024], and the
decision of the Bombay High Court in Shreegopal Barasia v.
Creative Homes and Others [ 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 42].
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1
to 3 contended that the Applicant has no right to seek
appointment of an arbitrator invoking the arbitration clause in
Annexure-1 Agreement. Going by the terms of the Annexure-1
Agreement, the Agreement shall stand automatically
terminated on the refusal to make payment of the advance
consideration. Hence, Annexure-1 Agreement does not exist to
invoke the arbitration clause therein. The respondents 1 to 3
executed the Annexure-1 Agreement since they were in
emergent need of money in order to liquidate their liability to
LIC Housing Finance Ltd., as the SARFAESI proceedings were
AR No.15 of 2025
10
2025:KER:44852
in an advanced stage. The advance amount of Rs.30 Crores for
Annexure-1 Agreement dated 27.10.2024 was insisted on the
next day itself only on account of their immediate requirement
of the amount. If the Applicant does not pay the amount on the
next day, the respondents 1 to 3 had to find another buyer to
raise the money. Taking into account this situation, provision for
automatic termination of the agreement was incorporated in
Annexure-1 Agreement. The Cheque issued by the Applicant
was not presented for encashment on the specific instruction
from the Applicant that there is a shortage of funds in her
account. Though the Applicant approached the Civil Court by
filing the suit and obtained an interim injunction, the same was
vacated later finding no merits and the Applicant did not press
the suit. Though the Applicant attempted to obtain an order from
the Commercial Court by way of an interim measure under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the same
was dismissed, specifically finding that the Agreement stood
AR No.15 of 2025
11
2025:KER:44852
terminated as the Applicant failed to honour the Cheque issued
by the Applicant. In view of the specific findings in the common
order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, the
Applicant has no right to pray for the appointment of an
arbitrator. The learned counsel further contended that the
Applicant has approached this Court with unclean hands,
misrepresenting that he has paid the advance consideration of
Rs.30 Crores to the respondents 1 to 3. Now the attempt of the
applicant is to harass the respondents by indulging into
frivolous and vexatious litigations without making payment of
even a single penny from her pocket to the respondents. The
learned counsel cited the decision of the Hyderabad High Court
in Radha Madhavi G. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd and
Others [2018 KHC 2495] in support of his contentions.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent contended
that the 4th respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper party
in the present Application. The 4th respondent is not a party to
AR No.15 of 2025
12
2025:KER:44852
the Annexure-1 Agreement. The assignee included in
Annexure-1 Agreement is the only permitted assignee. Since
the 4th respondent is not a permitted assignee, he is not a
necessary party to the arbitration proceedings and this
Application. There is nothing to be adjudicated between the
Applicant and the 4th respondent. The nature of the Annexure-
1 Agreement executed by the Applicant and the respondents 1
to 3 and the Agreement dated 30.10.2024 are totally different.
As per Annexure-1 Agreement the applicant agreed to
purchase 100% equity shares of the 1st respondent, whereas,
as per the Agreement by the respondents 1 to 3 and the 4th
respondent, the respondents 1 to 3 agreed to transfer the
business, including assets of the 1st respondent. Since the 4th
respondent has not entered into any agreement with
respondents 1 to 3 for the purchase of shares of the 1st
respondent, the 4th respondent will not become the assignee of
the subject matter of the Annexure-1 Agreement. The learned
AR No.15 of 2025
13
2025:KER:44852
Senior Counsel further contended that the Applicant has not
issued notice to the 4th respondent intimating her intention to
invoke the arbitration clause. In the absence of such Notice, as
required under S.11(5) and 21 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996 (for short ‘the Act’), the Arbitration
Request against the 4th respondent is not at all maintainable.
The learned Senior Counsel cited the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish
Spinning [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1754], Arif Azim Company
Limited v. Aptech Limited [(2024) 5 SCC 313], Ajay
Madhusudan Patel and Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors.
[(2025) 2 SCC 147] and Cox and Kings Limited v. Sap India
Private Limited & Anr. [(2024) 4 SCC 1] (herein after referred
to as ‘Cox and Kings I’) and the decision of the Delhi High Court
in Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. v. Manav Sethi & Anr. [(2024)
SCC OnLine Del 4819] to support his contentions.
9. I have considered the rival contentions.
AR No.15 of 2025
14
2025:KER:44852
10. The following two questions arise for consideration in this
Application for the appointment of an Arbitrator.
1. Whether the Annexure-1 Agreement is still in force to invoke the
Arbitration clause contained therein?
2. Whether the 4th respondent is a necessary or proper party in this
Application and in the Arbitration proceedings arising out of the
Annexure-1 Agreement?
Question No.1.
11. In Interplay (supra) while considering the doctrine of
competence-competence, the Hon’ble Supreme held that it is a
well-recognized principle of public international law that a legal
authority possessing adjudicatory powers has the right to
decide its own jurisdiction that an arbitral tribunal has the power
to determine its own jurisdiction; that the ability of an Arbitral
Tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction is an important facet
of arbitration jurisprudence because it gives effect to the
separability presumption; that the separability presumption
insulates the arbitration agreement from the defects underlying
AR No.15 of 2025
15
2025:KER:44852
the contract and thereby ensures the sustenance of the
tribunal’s jurisdiction over the substantive rights and obligations
of the parties under the underlying contract even after such a
contract is put to an end; and that the doctrine of competence-
competence allows the tribunal to decide on all substantive
issues arising out of the underlying contract, including the
existence and validity of the arbitration agreement. In
Shreegopal (Supra), the Bombay High Court followed the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Interplay (supra)
and held that the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11
ought to restrict its scrutiny solely to the existence of an
agreement; that the existential questions about whether the
agreement that is seen as executed on the face of the record,
in fact truly exists, and if it exists, whether it validly exists, would
all be a matter of merits for consideration by the Arbitral
Tribunal; and that all these are matters of evidence that only the
Arbitral Tribunal would need to deal with. The decision of the
AR No.15 of 2025
16
2025:KER:44852
Hyderabad High Court in Radha Madhavi (Supra) is cited by
the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 to substantiate the
point that when the Agreement is automatically terminated, the
Arbitration clause is not available to initiate arbitration
proceedings. The said decision is clearly distinguishable from
the facts of the present case, as in the said decision, the
automatic termination is on account of the expiry of the
agreement period. But in the case at hand, the automatic
termination happens on the dishonour of the cheque. The
Respondents 1 to 3 did not present the cheque for encashment,
hence there was no dishonour to attract automatic termination.
The contention is that the cheque was not presented
consequent to the instruction given by the Applicant and thus
the Applicant failed to honour the cheque. But whether the
cheque was not presented consequent to the instruction given
by the Applicant and whether the Applicant failed to honour the
cheque are disputed questions of fact to be adjudicated by the
AR No.15 of 2025
17
2025:KER:44852
Arbitrator. It is for the arbitrator to decide whether there was an
automatic termination of the Agreement. This Court sitting in
the referral jurisdiction under Section 11(6) is not expected to
decide those questions while considering an Application for the
appointment of an Arbitrator. That apart, it is settled law that the
arbitration clause in an Agreement would survive even after
termination of the Agreement with respect to matters covered
by it and even with respect to the question of termination. The
Arbitration Request was refused by the Hyderabad High Court
in the aforesaid case on the ground that the agreement ceased
to exist long back and parties continued on account of the
status quo order granted by the High Court in a writ petition.
Such a situation or a similar situation is not available in this
case. The claim of the Applicant is not ex facie meritless to
deny arbitration.
12. Even though the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3
contended that there is a specific finding in the Order under
AR No.15 of 2025
18
2025:KER:44852
Section 9 of the Act that the Applicant failed to honour the
cheque and hence the Agreement is not subsisting and that the
contract stands terminated, I am of the view that any finding
entered into by the Court dealing with Section 9 Application is
not an absolute finding. The said findings are made only for the
purpose of considering a prima facie case for granting interim
measures sought for under Section 9 of the Act. Hence, the
finding in the Order in M.A.(Arb.) No.281/2024 disposing of
Section 9 Application is not binding on either this Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 11(6) or the Arbitrator
appointed by this Court.
13. The Counsel for the respondents contended that there is a
misrepresentation in the Application that she has paid the
advance consideration of Rs.30 Crores. On going through the
entire pleadings in the Application, I find that the Applicant has
stated that the respondents 1 to 3 did not present the cheque
for Rs.30 Crores given by her. So it is clear that the payment the
AR No.15 of 2025
19
2025:KER:44852
applicant referred to is the payment through cheque, which was
not presented for encashment.
14. In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the
question whether the Annexure-1 Agreement is subsisting or not
is a matter to be considered by the Arbitrator and not by this Court
acting under the referral jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the
Act. Hence, the Arbitration Request could not be dismissed on
this ground.
Question No.2.
15. In Devtree Corp. LLP (supra), the Division Bench of the
Karnataka High Court held that a person who is not a party to
the arbitration agreement, and being the purchaser of the
properties from a person who is a party to the arbitration
agreement, is bound by the arbitration clause binding on the
vendor. But the person concerned in the said decision was a
pendente lite purchaser during the pendency of Section 9
AR No.15 of 2025
20
2025:KER:44852
proceedings, and such a situation is not available in the case
on hand.
16. In Basant Kumar Khemka (Supra), the Calcutta High Court,
following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Devtree
(supra), held that the use of the expression ‘successors’ is
sufficiently expansive to include all subsequent successors-in-
interest. It is a case where the assignee came before the Court
seeking appointment of Arbitrator.
17. In Nirmala Jain (supra), the Delhi High Court held that a non-
party to an arbitration agreement is permissible where
commonality and composite nature of transactions between the
party and the non-party are involved.
18. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the 4th respondent
is that at the referral stage, this Court is to consider whether a
non-signatory is a ‘veritable’ party to the Arbitration Agreement
or not. Learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to
Paragraph No.169 of the decision in Cox and Kings I (supra).
AR No.15 of 2025
21
2025:KER:44852
“169. In case of joinder of non-signatory parties to an arbitration agreement, the
following two scenarios will prominently emerge: first, where a signatory party
to an arbitration agreement seeks joinder of a non-signatory party to the
arbitration agreement; and second, where a non-signatory party itself seeks
invocation of an arbitration agreement. In both the scenarios, the referral
court will be required to prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration
agreement and whether the non-signatory is a veritable party to the
arbitration agreement. In view of the complexity of such a determination, the
referral court should leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the
non-signatory party is indeed a party to the arbitration agreement on the
basis of the factual evidence and application of legal doctrine. The Tribunal
can delve into the factual, circumstantial, and legal aspects of the matter to
decide whether its jurisdiction extends to the non-signatory party. In the
process, the Tribunal should comply with the requirements of principles of
natural justice such as giving opportunity to the non-signatory to raise
objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. This
interpretation also gives true effect to the doctrine of competence-
competence by leaving the issue of determination of true parties to an
arbitration agreement to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section
16.”
AR No.15 of 2025
22
2025:KER:44852
19. But in Cox and Kings I (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
concluded that at the referral stage, the referral court should
leave it for the Arbitral Tribunal to decide whether the non-
signatory is bound by the arbitration agreement.
20. In Cox and Kings II (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that in view of the complexity involved in the determination of
the question as to whether the respondent No.2 therein is a
party to the arbitration agreement or not, it would be appropriate
for the Arbitral Tribunal to take a call on the said question after
taking into consideration the evidence adduced before it by the
parties and the legal doctrine elaborated in the decision in Cox
and Kings I (supra).
21. In Ajay Madhusudan Patel (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court considered the limited scope and ambit of the jurisdiction
of the Court under Section 11(6) to decide whether a non-party
to an Arbitration Agreement is bound by such Agreement or
not. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the referral court is
AR No.15 of 2025
23
2025:KER:44852
required to prima facie rule on the existence of the arbitration
agreement and whether the non-signatory party is a veritable
party to the arbitration agreement and in case of complexity of
such a determination, the Arbitral Tribunal is the proper forum
since it can decide whether the non-signatory is a party to the
arbitration agreement on the basis of factual evidence and
application of legal doctrine and that in this process, the non-
signatory must also be given an opportunity to raise objections
regarding the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance
with the principles of natural justice.
22. In view the aforesaid legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I am of the view that this Court, under referral
jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, has only very limited
jurisdiction to examine whether a non-signatory is a ‘veritable’
party to the Agreement or not. If such examination is complex
in nature and requires deeper enquiry, this Court has to leave
it for the Arbitrator to decide.
AR No.15 of 2025
24
2025:KER:44852
23. In the case on hand, the 4th respondent is not a party to the
Annexure-1 Agreement. The Applicant has sent Annexure-4
Notice to the respondents 1 to 3 alone. Annexure-4 was not
sent to the 4th respondent. The Applicant is alleging breach of
the Annexure-1 Agreement. Since Annexure-4 Notice was sent
only to the respondents 1 to 3, it could be assumed that the
Applicant intended to initiate arbitration proceedings only
against the respondents 1 to 3. It was not in the contemplation
of the Applicant to claim any relief against the 4th respondent
when the Annexure-4 Notice was sent. Notice to a party to the
Arbitration Agreement could not be treated as notice to a non-
party, even if he is an assignee of such party to the Arbitration
Agreement. Section 21 of the Act provides that arbitral
proceedings in respect of a particular dispute commence on
the date on which a request for that dispute to be referred for
arbitration is received by the respondent. Hence the Arbitration
proceedings have not commenced so far as it relates to the 4th
AR No.15 of 2025
25
2025:KER:44852
respondent. Annexure-4 would reveal that the resolution of any
dispute between the Applicant and the 4th respondent was not
in the contemplation of the Applicant at the time of issuing the
Annexure-4 Notice. In Arif Asim (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that when an Application under Section 11(6) is
made before the Court without exhausting the mechanism
prescribed under the said sub-section including that of invoking
arbitration by issuance of formal notice to the other party, the
Court is not duty-bound to appoint an arbitrator and can reject
the Application for being premature and non-compliant with the
statutory mandate. Notice, as required under Section 11(5) of
the Act, was not served on the 4th respondent. In view of these
facts, I am of the view that the 4th respondent is not a veritable
party in the Arbitration to adjudicate the disputes between the
applicant and the respondents 1 to 3. On the same reasoning,
I find that the 4th respondent is not a necessary party in this
Application.
AR No.15 of 2025
26
2025:KER:44852
24. In view of my answer to Question No.1, I allow this Application
and it is ordered as follows.
1. Mr.Justice N.K Balakrishnan, Former Judge of this Court,
‘Punartham’ Savitha Road, Near Kottankavu Temple,
Vennala P.O, Kochi 682 028 Mobile No.9447740122 is
nominated as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
that have arisen between the Applicant and the
respondents 1 to 3 out of the Annexure-1 Agreement.
2. The learned Arbitrator may entertain all issues between
Applicant and the respondents 1 to 3 in connection with
the said Annexure-1 Agreement, including questions of
jurisdiction and limitation, if any, raised by the parties. All
contentions of the Applicant and the respondents 1 to 3
are left open and they are at liberty to raise their claims
and counter-claims, if any, before the learned Arbitrator,
in accordance with law.
3. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to
the learned Arbitrator within ten days from today and
AR No.15 of 2025
27
2025:KER:44852
obtain a Statement of Disclosure from the learned
Arbitrator as stipulated under Section 11(8) read with
Section 12(1) of the Act. Upon receipt of the Disclosure
Statement, the Registry shall issue to the learned
Arbitrator a certified copy of this order with a copy of the
Disclosure Statement appended. The Original of the
Disclosure Statement shall be retained in the Court.
4. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by
the Fourth Schedule of the Act.
5. If the learned Arbitrator needs the assistance of an
expert, such assistance can be sought from an expert in
the course of the arbitration proceedings.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/jma
AR No.15 of 2025
28
2025:KER:44852
APPENDIX OF AR 15/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INVESTMENT AGREEMENT DATED
27.10.2024 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND
THE 1ST TO 3RD RESPONDENTS
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO. 196422 DATED 27.10.2024
DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.11.2024 SENT BY
THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
POSTAL RECEIPTS
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.11.2024 ISSUED BY
THE APPLICANT THROUGH THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL ALONG
WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R4(A) True copy of the letter dated 27.09.2024 issued by
the third respondent and the chairman of the fourth
respondent to LIC Housing Finance Limited
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the common order dtd.11.12.2024 in
M.A (Arb) No. 281/2024 on the files of the
Commercial Court, Ernakulam
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the judgment dtd. 17.12.2024 in O.S
No. 305/2024 on the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha.