Kerala High Court
Sundaram Finance Ltd vs Ajith Lukose, S/O. O.A.Lukose on 2 April, 2025
1
OPC 1034 & 926/24
2025:KER:30667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 1034 OF 2024
CMA(Arb) NO.94 OF 2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER, 21 PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI-600002, REPRESENTED BY
ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER SRI.P.V.SUNIL KUMAR, SENIOR
MANAGER(LEGAL), AGED 53 YEARS, S/O P.K.VELAYUDHA PILLAI, THE
MONARCH, 1ST FLOOR, XL/1066B, P.T.USHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADVS.
VPK.PANICKER
S.MUKUNTH (SR.)(MS.53/2023(SEN))
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJITH LUKOSE, S/O. P.A.LUKOSE
AGED 48 YEARS, PUTHENKALAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KANAKKARI,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686632
2 RANI AJITH W/O. AJITH LUKOSE
AGED 42 YEARS, PUTHENKALAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KANAKKARI,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686632
BY ADVS. Anish Lukose
RAYJITH MARK(K/690/2009)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, ALONG
WITH OP(C).926/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OPC 1034 & 926/24
2025:KER:30667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 926 OF 2024
CMA(Arb) NO.95 OF 2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD
21 PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI,REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
OFFICER SRI.P.V.SUNIL KUMAR, SENIOR MANAGER(LEGAL), AGED 53
YEARS, S/O P.K.VELAYUDHA PILLAI, THE MONARCH, 1ST FLOOR,
XL/1066B, P.T.USHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 600002
BY ADVS.
VPK.PANICKER
S.MUKUNTH (SR.)(MS.53/2023(SEN))
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJITH LUKOSE, S/O. O.A.LUKOSE
AGED 48 YEARS
PUTHENKALAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686632
2 RANI AJITH W/O. AJITH LUKOSE
AGED 42 YEARS
PUTHENKALAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686632
BY ADVS.Anish Lukose
RAYJITH MARK(K/690/2009)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, ALONG
WITH OP(C).1034/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OPC 1034 & 926/24
2025:KER:30667
JUDGMENT
[OP(C) Nos.1034/2024 and 926/2024] (Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 ) O.P.(C.) No.1034 of 2024 is filed challenging Ext.P9 order in C.M.A. (Arb) No.94/2023 and O.P.(C) No.926 of 2024 is filed challenging Ext.P8 order in C.M.A.(Arb) No.95/2023 of the Principal District Judge, Kottayam. The petitioner in both the cases is a Non-Banking Financial Public Limited Company engaged in various financial activities, including hire-purchase transactions. Since, parties are one and the same in both the petitions, heard together and a common judgment is passed.
2. The facts of cases are as follows:
OP© No.926 of 2024 : The respondents sought a loan from the petitioner Company to purchase a 2018 VE CV Eicher vehicle, bearing registration number KL 05/AS 270. The 4 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 Company granted a loan of ₹16,60,000 to the first respondent, under a loan agreement dated 17/01/2022. The 2nd respondent acted as guarantor, vide a separate agreement. Subsequently, the vehicle was hypothecated to the Company, and a charge was registered in its favour. Further, the respondents defaulted the loan repayments and despite issuing notice, they failed to settle the dues. Thus, as per clause 22 of Ext. P1 agreement, the Company referred the dispute to the Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MCCI), for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
3. The MCCI, as per its rules, appointed an arbitrator, with due notice to the borrower and guarantor. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the arbitrator and filed Claim Petition, registered as Arbitration Case No. RM/MCCI/15/2023. An Interim Application was also filed as No. 46 of 2023, seeking an order to provide security of 5 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 ₹16,34,473.23, by the respondents or, failing that, for the attachment of their properties through the Principal District Court, Kottayam.
4. The Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order dated 28/03/2023, directed the respondents to furnish security by 17/04/2023 and due to their non-compliance, the Tribunal, vide order dated 17/04/2023, requested the Principal District Court, Kottayam, to enforce the interim attachment of the respondents' immovable property under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, read with Section 136 CPC, and to confirm the attachment. To enforce Ext P5, the petitioner filed Ext P6 application under Section 17(2) of the Act, before the Principal District Court, Kottayam, as C.M.A.(Arb) No. 95/2023, against which the first respondent filed objections challenging the validity of the arbitrator's appointment. The Principal District Judge, after considering the matter, dismissed Ext P6, by order dated 6 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 25/01/2024. Aggrieved by Exhibit P8, this original petition is filed.
5. O.P.© No.1034 of 2024 : The petitioner granted a loan of ₹20,40,000/- to the first respondent, under a loan agreement dated 17/01/2022, to purchase a 2018 VE CV Eicher vehicle bearing registration number KL 05/AT 6064. Further, the respondents defaulted the loan repayments and despite issuing notice, they failed to settle the dues. Thus, as per clause 22 of Ext P1, the Company referred the dispute to the Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industries (MCCI), for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.
6. The MCCI appointed an arbitrator, with due notice to the borrower and guarantor. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the arbitrator and filed its Claim Petition, as Arbitration Case No. RM/MCCI/677/2022. The petitioner also filed Interim Application No. 34 of 2023, seeking an order to 7 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 provide security of ₹20,23,161/- by the respondents or, failing that, for the attachment of their properties through the Principal District Court, Kottayam.
7. The Tribunal, by order dated 13/02/2023, directed the respondents to furnish security by 06/03/2023, and due to their non-compliance, the Tribunal, vide order dated 06/03/2023, requested the Principal District Court, Kottayam, to enforce the interim attachment of the respondents' immovable property under Sec 17 of the Arbitration Act, r/w Section 136 CPC, and to confirm the attachment. To enforce Ext P6, the petitioner filed Ext P7 application under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration Act, before the Principal District Court, Kottayam, as C.M.A.(Arb) No. 94/2023, against which the first respondent filed objections challenging the arbitrator's appointment as invalid. The Principal District Judge, after considering the matter, dismissed Ext P7, by Ext P9 order 8 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 dated 25/01/2024. Aggrieved by Exhibit P9, this O.P(C) stands filed.
8. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are erroneous, since the District Court erred by dismissing Ext.P6 application in O.P.(C) Nos.926 and Ext.P7 application in O.P.(C) No.1034 of 2024, based on a misapplication of this Court's decision in M/s Hedge Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijish Joseph (2022 KHC 591), which solely addressed the validity of a unilateral arbitrator appointment by a disqualified Managing Director under Sections 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The lower appellate Court also failed to realize that the parties to Ext.P1 had mutually agreed upon a specific procedure for arbitrator appointment in the event of a dispute and consequently, the ruling in Hedge Finance (supra) is inapplicable to the present matter.
9. It is submitted that Sec 12 of the Arbitration 9 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 Act does not apply in this case since the Petitioner did not appoint or nominate any arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Therefore, neither the selection nor the choice of the arbitrator was dictated by any party to the agreement, thereby precluding the application of the disqualifications enumerated under the 5th and 7th schedule or Sec 12 of the Arbitration Act. Further, it was asserted that institutional arbitration under MCCI is conducted by an independent institution governed by its own procedural rules and hence, there is no basis for alleging bias, to the arbitrator's independent functioning. The counsel also contended that consent of the parties for arbitrator appointment is required, only in cases where the parties have not previously agreed upon a specific appointment procedure, prior to the dispute. Thus, Ext.Nos.P8 and P9 orders in O.P.(C) Nos.926 and 1034 respectively, are perverse and illegal and hence, be set aside. 10 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667
10. The counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, advanced that the appointment of the sole arbitrator was without notice to the respondents, which in turn contravened the provisions of the Arbitration Act. Hence, as per the settled position of law, the appointment of the arbitrator itself was ex facie bad, which goes to the root of the matter and therefore, the appointment was without the concurrence of the respondent violative of the relevant provisions of the Act and is in contravention to the spirit of the dictum as held in M/S Hedge (supra). Hence, asserts that the reasoning adopted by the lower appellate court in both the orders challenged herein are in order and prays for dismissal of these O.Ps.
11. The 1st respondent has entered into Ext P1 loan agreement with the petitioner on 17.01.2022, for the purchase of the above said vehicles. Article 22 of Ext.P1 deals with law jurisdiction, arbitration. Article 22 sub clauses a, b and c 11 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 reads as follows:
"LAW,JURISDICTION, ARBITRATION
(a) All disputes, differences and/or claim, arising out of this agreement, whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be referred to the sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by MCCI Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation Centre (MAMC) run by The Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI), presently having its office at "Karumuttu Centre", I Floor, 634, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 035 or Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC), presently having its office at New No.22, Karpagambal Nagar, Mylapore, Chennai, Tamilnadu-600 004 or Madras Arbitration Solutions LLP, an Arbitral institution presently having office at No.23/9, Vignesh Apartments, Ground Floor, Jothi Ramalingam Street, West Marnbalam, Chennai, Tamilnadu 600 033 or nominated by the Managing Director of the Lender. The proceedings shall be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the MAMC/Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre/Madras Arbitration Solutions LLP as the case may be, governing arbitration proceedings. If the sole arbitrator is nominated by the Managing Director of the Lender, such an arbitrator may follow his/her own rules and procedure. The award given by the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this agreement.
It is a term of this agreement that in the event of such an arbitrator to whom the matter has been originally referred, dying or being unable to act for any reason, MAMC or NPAC or Madras Arbitration Solutions LLP or Managing Director of the Lender, as the case may be, shall nominate another person to act as arbitrator. Such a person shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his/her Predecessor.
(b) The venue of arbitration proceedings shall be 12 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 CHENNAI.
(c) The arbitrator so appointed herein above shall also be entitled to pass an Award on the hypothecated asset and also on any other securities furnished by or on behalf of any of the parties to the arbitration."
12. When there was a default on the part of the 1st respondent in remitting the monthly instalments in both the instances, the petitioner invoked Article 22 mentioned above, and referred the dispute to the MCCI for appointment of a sole Arbitrator. Thereafter, the Registrar of MCCI was requested to appoint an Arbitrator. The MCCI, acting on the request, appointed a sole Arbitrator and the Arbitrator was informed regarding the appointment with a copy to the lender as well as the borrower and guarantor.
13. The petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator and submitted a claim petition and also filed interim applications for a direction to the respondents to furnish security within a time to be stipulated by the Tribunal, and in default, to order 13 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 for conditional attachment through the principal district Court, Kottayam. Invoking section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short 'the Act'), the respondents were directed to furnish securities within a stipulated time, for a sum of Rs.16,34,473.23/- in O.P.(C) No.926 of 2024 and Rs.20,23,161/- in O.P.(C) No.1034 of 2024, and in default in furnishing security, to pass an order of attachment. Since the orders were not complied by the respondents, the petitioners filed applications under Section 17(2) of the Act before the District Court, Kottayam and the same was numbered as C.M.A. (Arbn.) No.95 of 2023 and C.M.A. (Arbn.) No.94 of 2023, seeking enforcement of the orders dated 17.4.2023 and 6.3.2023 in I.A.No.46 of 2023 and I.A.No.34 of 2023 respectively, under the CPC.
14OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667
14. Upon receiving notice, the 1st respondent appeared and filed objections to both CMAs, asserting that the arbitrator's appointment was fundamentally flawed and contravened the Act's provisions, rendering the arbitrator de jure ineligible. Consequently, the orders were deemed inexecutable. The learned District Judge, through Exhibits P8 and P9, dismissed the applications, citing the court's judgment in Hedge Finance Ltd. (supra).
15. The petitioner's senior counsel, Shri. S. Mukunth, distinguished the present case from the Hedge Finance Ltd. (supra) ruling. He contended that the latter was irrelevant as the arbitrator's appointment was not unilateral by either party. Instead, he pointed out that Article 22 of the Agreement 15 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 mandated a request to the Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI) for the appointment of the sole arbitrator. He relied on a judgment of the supreme court in Nandan Biomatrix Limited v. D 1 Oils Limited [2009) 4 SCC 495], Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust and others [(2012) 1 SCC 455] and Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Retail Limited and others [(2022) 1 SCC 209].
16. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent relied on Hedge Finance (supra), wherein this court held thus:
"On an analysis of the amended provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the exposition of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore
- cited decisions, it is abundantly clear that the law mandates that there should be neutrality not only for the Arbitrator but also in the arbitrator selection process as well. Thus, in the post -2015 amendment era, there are only two modes of appointment of a sole Arbitrator (i) by express agreement in writing between the parties, post the dispute, agreeing to waive the applicability of Section 12 of the Act or (ii) by order of appointment by the High court under Section 11 of the Act. If the appointment of a sole arbitrator is made other than by the above 2 methods, the appointment is ex facie bad and is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, which goes to the 16 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 roots of the matter, and the Arbitrator becomes de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator by the operation of law."
17. In the present case, Article 22 of the loan agreement stipulates that the sole arbitrator shall be nominated by the MCCI Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation Centre (MAMC), an entity operated by the Madras Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI). Thus, the arbitrator's nomination does not originate from either party. The petitioner requested the institution to make the nomination, and the nomination was subsequently carried out by this independent body, which adheres to its own rules for Arbitration and Conciliation. Consequently, this nomination cannot be construed as one prescribed by the petitioner. The court's judgment in Hedge Finance (supra) addressed a scenario where one party unilaterally nominated the arbitrator without the other party's concurrence or a prior agreement as 17 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 contemplated under Section 12(5) or its proviso of the Arbitration Act.
18. The apex court in Nandan Biomatrix Limited (supra) held that the crucial determination for the court is the existence of an agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration, with the intention to be discerned from the clauses within the loan agreement. A reading of Article 22 of the loan agreement unequivocally demonstrates the parties' agreement to resolve disputes through institutional arbitration, as opposed to an ad- hoc arrangement.
19. When an institution is approached for arbitration, it is the institution itself that nominates the arbitrator in accordance with its established rules. Neither party holds the prerogative to choose the arbitrator. The apex court in Sanjeev Kumar (supra), in paragraph 39, affirmed that an 18 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 arbitrator can be appointed directly by the parties, without court intervention, or by an institution specified in the arbitration agreement. In the absence of consensus regarding the arbitrator's appointment, or if the designated institution fails to fulfill its function, the party seeking arbitration is entitled to file an application under Section 11 of the Act for the appointment of arbitrators.
20. Section 2(6) of the Arbitration Act grants parties the autonomy to determine certain issues, including the right to authorize any person or institution to resolve disputes between them. Furthermore, Section 19(2) of the Act empowers parties to agree on the procedural rules to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting its proceedings.
19OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667
21. The Counsel also invoked Section 13 of the Act, which mandates that a party intending to challenge an arbitrator must, within 15 days of becoming aware of the arbitral tribunal's composition or any circumstances outlined in Section 12(3), submit a written statement detailing the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal. Section 12(3) specifies that unless the challenged arbitrator withdraws or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal shall rule on the challenge. If the challenge is unsuccessful, the arbitral tribunal shall continue the arbitral proceedings and issue an arbitral award. In the present case, the respondent has, to date, not approached the Arbitral Tribunal to challenge the arbitrator's appointment.
22. As previously noted, the appointment in Hedge Finance (supra) was made unilaterally by one of the parties 20 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 to the agreement, namely Hedge Finance. The relevant clause in Hedge Finance (supra) stipulated that all differences or disputes arising from the loan agreement would be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or its statutory amendments, and referred to a sole arbitrator appointed by 'HFL'. Thus, in that case, the sole arbitrator was appointed by HFL, a party to the agreement, without the other party's consent and without an express agreement under the proviso to Section 12 of the Act.
23. Turning to the facts of this case, there was no unilateral appointment by the petitioner. The appointment resulted from a nomination by an institution. Therefore, the court's judgment in Hedge Finance (supra) is not applicable 21 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 to the present circumstances. Therefore, the appointment in this case stands on a distinct footing.
24. As mentioned earlier, it is true that Hedge Finance (supra) explicitly stated that, following the 2015 amendment to the Arbitration Act, there are only two permissible modes of appointment: (1) by express written agreement waiving the application of Section 12, or (2) by the High Court under Section 11 of the Act. Consequently, it is evident that the decision in Hedge Finance (supra) did not address a situation where an institution was requested to nominate a sole arbitrator. The District Judge failed to consider this crucial distinction while dismissing the aforementioned CMA (Arb) cases. In these circumstances, I am firmly of the opinion that the impugned orders warrant interference, and I hereby do so.
22OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 In the result, these O.Ps.(C) are allowed, and the Ext.P8 order in O.P.(C) No.926 of 2024 and the Ext.P9 order in O.P.(C) No.1034 of 2024 are set aside. The District Judge, Kottayam, is directed to reconsider CMA (Arb) Nos.94 and 95 of 2023 in accordance with the law and the observations made herein.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/ 23 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 926/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 17/01/2022 BEARING NO. R048600178 WITH THE GUARANTEE AGREEMENT IS PRODUCED Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR, THE MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MCCI) IS PRODUCED Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MCCI FRAMED RULES FOR ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION IS PRODUCED Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MCCI) TO THE PARTIES IS PRODUCED Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2023 IN IA NO.46/2023 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.RM/MCCI/15/2023 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR IS PRODUCED Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CMA (ARB) NO.95/2023 IS PRODUCED Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11/12/2023 TO CMA (ARB) NO. 95/2023 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IS PRODUCED Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2024 PASSED IN CMA (ARB) NO.95/2023 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IS PRODUCED 24 OPC 1034 & 926/24 2025:KER:30667 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1034/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED 17/01/2022 BEARING NO. R048600180 WITH THE GUARANTEE AGREEMENT IS PRODUCED Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/11/2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGISTRAR, THE MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MCCI), WITH COPY TO THE RESPONDENTS IS PRODUCED Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MCCI FRAMED RULES FOR ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION IS PRODUCED Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE MADRAS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES (MCCI) TO THE PARTIES IS PRODUCED Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/01/2023 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR TO THE PARTIES IS PRODUCED Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/03/2023 IN IA NO.34/2023 IN ARBITRATION CASE NO.RM/MCCI/677/2022 ISSUED BY THE ARBITRATOR IS PRODUCED Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN CMA (ARB) NO.94/2023 IS PRODUCED Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11/12/2023 TO CMA (ARB) NO. 94/2023 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IS PRODUCED Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/01/2024 PASSED IN CMA (ARB) NO.94/2023 OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IS PRODUCED