Kerala High Court
Neelima E vs M/S B Company on 19 August, 2025
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:62714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 27.02.2025 IN EP
NO.317 OF 2022 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC) III,
THRISSUR
PETITIONERS:
1 NEELIMA E
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O SAJEESH NAIR, 37, HARITHA NAGAR, NURANI P.O,
YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN - 678004
2 SHAJESH NAIR
AGED 37 YEARS
37, HARITHA NAGAR,YAKKARA VILLAGE,NURANI POST
OFFICE,PALAKKD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,KERALA
STATE, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHIBIN K.F.
SHRI.SEBY JOSEPH
SMT.ANEENA ROY
RESPONDENT:
M/S B COMPANY
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR, V.S BINOD, NO.146/4,
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:62714
CLASSIC EMERALD APARTMENTS, THIRMANGALAM, ANNA
NAGAR WEST, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 600040
BY ADV SHRI.ANESH PAUL
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAMESH KUMAR FOR RESPONDENT
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:62714
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 19th day of August, 2025) The Original petition is filed by the petitioners/judgment debtor under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Exhibit-P1 order dated 29.11.2023 in E.A.No..335/2023 in E.P.No.317/2022, set aside the Exhibit-P2 order dated 27.02.2025 in E.A.No.685/2024, the Exhibit-P3 order dated 27.02.2025 in E.A.No.686/2024, and the award passed by the sole arbitrator dated 18.09.2021, and pass any appropriate order.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent said to be initiated arbitration proceedings before the sole arbitrator one Mr.K.A Mariappan at Chennai alleging that the petitioner said to be borrowed loan by executing five documents from the respondent. A notice was issued by the respondent and subsequently, initiated the proceedings before the sole arbitrator in A.R.C.No.152/2021. A notice was issued to the OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:62714 petitioner, the petitioner said to be appeared before the arbitrator and raised objection mainly on the ground that the arbitrator appointed was unilateral and fraud committed by the claimant. After filing objection with documents further not contested, subsequently an award has been passed by the sole arbitrator on 18.09.2021, a notice also issued to the petitioner mentioning about the passing of the arbitration award. Subsequently the petitioner not chosen to file any petition before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Thereafter the respondent filed E.P.No.317/2022 and he has filed E.A.No.335/2023 for attaching the property. Then the petitioner said to be approached the execution court by filing an objection contending that the arbitrator has no power to pass an award as he was appointed unilaterally and not in accordance with law. All the documents were created by the respondent. And after hearing the arguments the execution court dismissed the application on 29.11.2023. Subsequently once again the petitioner filed a Review petition in E.A.No.685/2024 that also came to dismissed OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:62714 on 27.02.2025. Now the execution court proceeded to execute that award by selling the property which was attached, hence the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that, the very appointment of the arbitrator unilaterally by the respondent was illegal and without the consent of the JDR. Even otherwise the respondent, the petitioner said to be executed a loan agreement, which is a forged document, a small piece of paper, where written is a condensed manner mentioned about the loan, but there is no address and other details of the both parties were mentioned. Subsequently notice also issued, there is no mention of the name of the sole arbitrator in the notice issued by the respondent. But subsequently they created a letter in the name of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner said to be given a consent for appointing sole Arbitrator Mr.Mariyappan at Chennai and consented for arbitration procedure at Chennai. Those documents were created by the respondent. Therefore the petitioner also filed a complaint to the Chennai Police and the very award passed by the arbitrator OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:62714 is non-est in the eye of law therefore there is no petition required to to be filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for setting aside the same. Therefore the award under challenge is non-est in the eye law of and not executable. Therefore prayed for setting aside the same. Consequently, the I.A. filed by the respondent and order passed by the court below shall be liable to be set aside.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent filed the counter and objected the petition mainly, it is contended, that when a notice was issued to the petitioner, he has not challenged the same. When the arbitration proceeding was initiated, a notice was issued by the Arbitrator, at that time, he has not approached the High Court for appointing the arbitrator on his behalf. And he has appeared before the Arbitrator and received the documents, inspected the documents through counsel and filed the objections and thereafter not contested the matter. Hence the Arbitrator passed the award. It is further contended that even after passing the award, the Arbitrator issued a notice to the petitioner intimating about the passing of OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:62714 the award. Without approaching the District Court Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner filed a complaint to the Magistrate and got it referred to the police station, V5 Thirumangalam Police under Section 156 (3) of C.P.C. The Police also apprehended the respondent, he obtained the anticipatory bail. Thereafter, He approached the High Court, where the High Court granted anticipatory bail and the police filed the report stating that they have mistaken the facts. And that case was closed. The petitioner not chosen to challenge the award before the District Court by invoking the provision of 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. And even after dismissing his objection by the Execution Court in November 2023, he has not chosen to approach the High Court or challenge the same. After lapse of more than a year, he filed a review petition and after dismissal of the review petition, the matters proceeded for executing the award. At this stage, he has approached the High Court under 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the court cannot interfere at this stage, as there is bar of superindence over the trial court as well as tribunal. There is no OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:62714 merits in the petition filed by the petitioner. There is no illegality committed by the court below, and hence, prayed for dsmiss the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. On perusal of the same which reveals the petitioner is said to be an Auditor and alleged to have borrowed loan of ₹ 1,85,000 from the respondent company. And he is said to executed a loan agreement on 19.05.2017 and on 31.05.2017. And also said to have executed some promissory notes in favour of the respondent. The petitioner said to have not paid the amount of ₹ 1,85,000. Therefore, a legal notice has been issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 12.08.2021. The respondent also submits, that the petitioner also said to be given consent for appointing the sole Arbitrator Mr. K.M. Mariyappan, as per the letter dated 25.05.2019 and another letter dated 25.05.2019 in respect of accepting the loan borrowed by the petitioner from the respondent. Admittedly the respondent raised the arbitration proceeding before the sole Arbitrator one Mr.Mariyappan, who is an advocate from Chennai. It is also not OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:62714 disputed that the notice issued by the Arbitrator to the petitioner, and the petitioner appeared before the Arbitrator through the counsel, filed his objection by denying the execution of loan agreement document etc. And also raised objection that there is no consent for appointment of the Arbitrator. However, the petitioner has not contested the arbitration proceedings. After filing of this statement of objection, he has not even challenged the initiation of arbitral proceedings by the respondent. Admittedly, the Arbitrator passed an award in September 2021. After passing the award, once again the sole Arbitrator issued a notice to the petitioner, intimating the award passed by him. Admittedly the petitioner not chosen to approach the District Court for setting aside the award passed by the sole arbitrator or approached the High Court by challenging the Award on the ground, that the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent was unilateral and all the documents were created by the respondent. Hence the Arbitration award has to be declared as non est. However after filing of the execution petition by the respondent, the petitioner OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:62714 raised objection before the court by taking the similar contention that the arbitration award is not executable as the arbitrator was appointed unilaterally. However, his objection was overruled by the Execution Court. Subsequently the petitioner not challenged the said order passed by the District Court, and subsequently has filed a review petition before the same court and after dismissal of the review petition the petitioners before this court. Before going to the case contention raised by the both counsels it is worth to mention that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Organisation for Railways Eletrification v. M/s ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company Reported Case 2024 Supreme Court (SC) 1015. The constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down certain principles at Para 169, where the Hon'ble Apex court discussed various issues and passed the order, which is as under:-
"a. The principle of equal treatment of parties applies at all stages of arbitration proceedings, including the stage of appointment of arbitrators.
b. The Arbitration Act does not prohibit PSUs from empanelling potential arbitrators. However, an OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:62714 arbitration clause cannot mandate the other party to select its arbitrator from the panel curated by PSUs;
c. A clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a sole arbitrator gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator. Further, such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the other party in the appointment process of arbitrators;
d. In the appointment of a three-member panel, mandating the other party to select its arbitrator from a curated panel of potential arbitrators is against the principle of equal treatment of parties. In this situation, there is no effective counterbalance because parties do not participate equally in the process of appointing arbitrators. The process of appointing arbitrators in CORE (supra) is unequal and prejudiced in favour of the Railways;
e. Unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;
f. The principle of express waiver contained under the proviso to Section 12(5) also applies to situations where the parties seek to waive the allegation of bias against an arbitrator appointed unilaterally by one of the parties. After the disputes have arisen, the parties can determine whether there is a necessity to waive the nemo judex rule; and g. The law laid down in the present reference will apply prospectively to arbitrator appointments to be made after the date of this judgment. This direction applies to three-member tribunals."OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 12
2025:KER:62714
7. Another Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner Reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) SC 400 in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v R. K. Pandey, wherein by relying upon the judgment of the Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the ex-parte Arbitration Awards, treating the award as null and void and not enforceable in law and dismiss the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the another judgment passed in 2019 Supreme (SC) 1297, in the case of Perkins Eastman Architects DPC and another v. HSCC India Ltd., at para 16 para as under:-
16. But, in our view that has to be the logical deduction from TRF Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377.
Paragraph 50 of the decision shows that this Court was concerned with the issue, "whether the Managing Director, after becoming ineligible by operation of law, is he still eligible to nominate an Arbitrator" The ineligibility referred to therein, was as a result of operation of law, in that a person having an interest in the dispute or in the outcome or decision thereof, must not only be ineligible to act as an arbitrator but must also not be eligible to appoint anyone else as an arbitrator and that such person cannot and should not have any role in charting out any course to the dispute resolution by having the power to appoint an arbitrator. The next sentences in the paragraph, further show that cases where both OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:62714 the parties could nominate respective arbitrators of their choice were found to be completely a different situation. The reason is clear that whatever advantage a party may derive by nominating an arbitrator of its choice would get counter balanced by equal power with the other party. But, in a case where only one party has a right to appoint a sole arbitrator, its choice will always have an element of exclusivity in determining or charting the course for dispute resolution. Naturally, the person who has an interest in the outcome or decision of the dispute must not have the power to appoint a sole arbitrator. That has to be taken as the essence of the amendments brought in by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 3 of 2016) and recognised by the decision of this Court in TRF Limited, (2017) 8 SCC 377.
8. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of M/s India Cements Capital Limited v. K.T Sadanandan reported in 2015 Supreme (online) KER 10555 at para18 the coordinate bench of this Court as held when the award itself is non est in the eyes of law, there is no question of challenge the same by filing petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. By keeping the principles laid on by the Honb'le of the Supreme Court in the above said cases, especially the constitutional benches of the Supreme Court, where it has held, when a clause that allows one party to unilaterally appoint a OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:62714 sole arbitrator, gives rise to justifiable doubts as to independence and impartiability of the arbitrator. Further such a unilateral clause is exclusive and hinders equal participation of the other party in the appointment process of arbitration. And once again at Para F the Apex Court has held , the principle of express waiver contained under Section 12 (5) also applies to the situation where the parties seem to waive the allegation of bias against the Arbitrator, appointed unilaterly by one of the parties, after dispute have arisen the parties can determine whether there is necessity to waive the memo. Here in this case the petitioner has stated there is no mention in the Arbitration Agreement for mentioning the name of the sole arbitrator Mariyappan. Whereas the contention of the respondent counsel is that vide letter dated 25.05.2019 the very petitioner given a letter by admitting the Loan, for liability and also giving consent for appointment of the sole arbitrator Mariyappan. The said both documents were produced by the petitioner herein. On Perusal of the alleged letter said to be issued by the petitioner on 25.05.2019 where it is said to be given letter by the petitioner OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:62714 to respondent one V.S. Binod by mentioning the name of the sole arbitrator K.M. Mariyappan, an advocate at Chennai and admitting the loan payable by the petitioner to the respondent. This document was seriously objected by the petitioner mainly on the ground that when the legal notice was issued by the respondent prior to approaching the arbitrator, the name of the arbitrator was not mentioned and also the consent given by the petitioner also not mentioned. In this regard, the legal notice issued by the respondent to the petitioner is produced as Ext. P15 an Advocate notice one Ramesh Kumar, issued notice to the petitioner mentioning the loan and the statement of the loan and he has mentioned the arbitration clause in the agreement at Para 8 in inner page no. 8 of the said notice wherein it referred as under:-
"whether during its subsistence or there after shall be settled by ARBITRATION in accordance with the provisions of the ARBITRAITON AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996, to the Sole arbitration of an ARBITRATOR, nominated by the LENDER/ MORTGAGEE/b' Company such appointment shall be deered to be and the procedure, agreed upon by all the parties to the above said agreement. If the arbitrator is unable to continue LENDER/MORTGAGEE/b' the arbitration, the Company may appoint another arbitrator to continue OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:62714 the process at the stage leave by the previcus arbitrator. The Venue of the Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai"
9. On perusal of this averments in the legal notice, it is stated that the matter may be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the respondent but there is no mention the name of the Arbitrator. Apart from that, it is also not mentioned that the petitioner already given consent for appointing Mariappan an arbitrator and there is no reference in respect of letter dated 25.05.2019 for giving consent to appointing the arbitrator or admitting the liability or loan payable by the petitioner to respondent as mentioned in the letter dated 25.05.2019.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended all these documents were created one, and there is no occasion for him to contest the matter when the arbitrator himself is unilaterally appointed and he has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding and pass the award. Therefore, he has not challenged the same before the same Arbitrator or before any court except for filing this petition before this court. Even though he raised the same objection in the execution case OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:62714 before the court below, the court below passed the order by overruling the objection raised by him and accepting the application or allowing the application filed by the respondent, which is not correct. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the award that has been passed by the sole Arbitrator who was appointed by the respondent unilaterally without the consent of the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and non-est in the eye of law. Even though it was not notified by the respondent to the petitioner that he is going to raise the claim petition before the sole arbitrator, Mariyappan, as considered by the petitioner, there is nothing mentioned about the name of Mariyappan in the earlier proceedings or earlier notices except the receipt of notice from the sole arbitrator by the petitioner. The petitioner raised the objection regarding the unilateral appointment of the arbitrator, but the same was not considered by the Arbitrator and the award was passed.
11. Therefore, the said award is non-est in the eyes of law. Therefore, it is not executable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case. Hence, OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:62714 the order under challenge passed by the court below, dismissing the objection raised by the petitioner, or the review petition filed by the petitioner, is not correct, as the very execution petition for executing the award is not executable under the law, and it is not an award in the eyes of the law. Therefore, under the Superintendent power of the High Court by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the award passed by the Arbitrator and the execution petition filed by the respondent are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed, and the order passed by the IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Thrissur, in E.A.No. 335/2023 in EP 378/2023 is hereby set aside. The EP 317/2022 is also set aside. Consequently, the award passed by the Arbitrator A.R.C.No.151/2021 dated 18.09.2021 is also hereby set aside.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN JUDGE vnk/-
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 19
2025:KER:62714 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 892/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 29-11-2023 IN EA NO. 335/2023 IN EP NO.
317/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 27-02-2025, IN EA NOS. 685/2024 IN EA NO. 335/2023 IN EP NO. 317/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 27-02-2025, IN EA NO. 686/2024 IN EP NO.
317/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO. 317/2022, DATED 07-03-2022, FILED BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD, DATED 18-09- 2021, IN ARC NO. 152/2021 PASSED BY K.A MARIAPPAN, SOLE ARBITRATOR NO.83 SUNDARAR STREET, THIRUVALISHWARAR NAGAR, THIRUMANGALAM, CHENNAI, PIN-600040.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER, DATED 16-08- 2023, IN EP NO. 317/2022 IN ARC NO.
152/2021 BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 335/2023, DATED 17-02-2023, IN EP NO. 317/2022 BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER, DATED 16-08- 2023, IN EA NO. 335/2023 IN EP NO.
317/2022 BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 685/2024, DATED 25-11-2024, IN EA NO. 335/2023 IN EP NO.
317/2022 BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 20
2025:KER:62714 Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE EA NO. 686/2024, DATED 25-11-2024, IN EP NO. 317/2022 BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN EA NO.685/2024 IN EA NO. 335/2023 IN EP NO. 317/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR.
Exhibit-P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE, DATED 11-01-2021, ADDRESSED TO MR. V.S. BINOD. Exhibit-P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND LAWYER NOTICE, DATED 11-01-2021, ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 28-01- 2021, ADDRESSED TO MR. L. INFANT DINESH, THE ADVOCATE OF THE PETITIONERS IN CHENNAI.
Exhibit-P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 28-01- 2021, WHEREIN THE RESPONDENT HEREIN CLAIMED MONEY AND ARBITRATION.
Exhibit-P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE, DATED 03-03- 2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN THROUGH ADV. L INFANT DINESH.
Exhibit-P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER, DATED 06-03- 2021, SHOWING APPOINTMENT OF ONE MR. K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE, DATED 23-03-2021, ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit-P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS, DATED 24-03-2021, SHOWING DESPATCH OF THE EXHIBIT-P18 LETTER TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AS WELL AS TO K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 10-04-2021 IS PRODUCED .
Exhibit-P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ALONG WITH DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 12(1)(B) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, DATED OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:62714 10-04-2021, ISSUED BY K.A MARIAPPAN, THE SOLE ARBITRATOR.
Exhibit-P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL, DATED 23-04- 2021, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS THROUGH ADV. A JOHN IS PRODUCED.
Exhibit-P23 . A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18-05- 2021 ISSUED BY K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P24 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-06- 2021 ISSUED BY K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P25 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12-07- 2021 ISSUED BY K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P26 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO, DATED 31-07-2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P27 A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31-07-2021 ISSUED BY K.A. MARIAPPAN.
Exhibit-P28 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 19-05-2017.
Exhibit-P29 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 31-05-2017.
Exhibit-P30 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, DATED 31-05-2017.
Exhibit-P31 A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLEGED PROMISSORY NOTE DATED 20-04-2018.
Exhibit-P32 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF OBJECTION, DATED 12-08-2021.
Exhibit-P33 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED 25-05- 2019 FABRICATED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WHEREIN THE ARBITRATION CLAUSES ARE QUOTED.
Exhibit-P34 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT, DATED 13-12- 2024, IN OP(C) NO. 2648 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Exhibit-P35 THE TYPED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR IN EP NO. 317/2022, DATED NIL, AS AVAILABLE ON HTTPS://THRISSUR.DCOURTS.GOV.IN/CASE- OP(C) NO. 892 OF 2025 22
2025:KER:62714 STATUS-SEARCH-BY-CASE-NUMBER/ RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit.R1(a) A true copy of the reply Legal Notice dated 11.01.2021 sent by the respondent to the petitioner Exhibit.R1(b) A true copy of the reply notice dated 03.03.2021 to the petitioners stating that there is a deed of partition Exhibit.R1(c) A true copy of the Notice dated 10.04.2021 sent by the Sole Arbitrator to the petitioner Exhibit.R1(d) A true copy of the Arbitration Agreement dated 31.05.2017 Exhibit R1(e) A true copy of the Lettrs of Request and consent of Arbitrator to conduct the arbitration Exhibit.R1(f) A true copy of the Police Complaint dated 30.07.2021 before the K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station.
Exhibit.R1(g) A true copy of the Execution Petition being E.P.No.317 of 2022 before the 3rd Additional District Court, Thrissur.
Exhibit.R1(h) A true copy of the order dated 11.02.2022 by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1473 of 2022. Exhibit.R1(i) A true copy of the order of this Honourable Court dated 13.12.2024 in OP(C)No.2648/2024.