IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TH MONDAY, THE 9 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 18TH BHADRA, 1946 ARB.A NO. 32 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2024 IN MA(ARB.) NO.584 OF 2024 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM APPELLANTS/1ST RESPONDENT IN MA(ARB):

MARGERET GEORGE AGED 71 YEARS W/O.PHILOMIN GEORGE PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 631 BY ADVS.

SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.A.G.PRASANTH SRI.K.N.ABHA SRI.ALEENA SEBASTIAN SRI.MARY HEDWIG BABY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1, 2 & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN MA(ARB):

1 ZACHARIA THOMAS AGED 56 YEARS S/O.LATE THOMAS K.SKARIAH, KOTTUVATHUKKAL HOUSE, KALLUMALA, MAVELIKKARA P.O., APAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 110

2 K.A.ANTONY AGED 61 YEARS S/O. LATE ANTONY KOTTUNGAL, G-276, KAILAS, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN – 682 036

3 KERALA FILM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE NEAR SHENOY’S THEATRE, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN – 682 035

4 ATHIRAMPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MG9Q+M6R, PANCHAYATH, CHARISBHAVAN CONNECTION ROAD, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 686 562

5 HDFC BANK LTD UNITY BUILDINGS, NEAR COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN – 686 002 BY ADVS.

SRI.MOHAMMED SIYAD M F SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI. P.B. KRISHNAN, SR.

THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R.RAVI.J -------------------------------------------------------

Arb.A.No.32 of 2024 --------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 09^th day of September, 2024 ORDER This appeal has been filed against the order dated

20.07.2024 in MA(Arb).No.584/2024 issued by the VI Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The appellant had entered into a partnership with respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose of constructing a multiplex, food mall, etc., in the 46 Ares of property, belonging to the appellant. The name of the firm is M/s.UGM Cinemas, Ettumanoor. The partnership agreement was entered into on 20.04.2018. A multiplex theatre was put up with a loan availed by mortgaging the property of the appellant. As per the partnership agreement, respondents 1 and 2 have brought in Rs.1 lakh each towards the capital, and, the capital that is brought in by the appellant is in the form of permission to construct over 46 Ares of land. The agreement specifically says that the 46 Ares of land will not become property of the partnership firm. It further says that a sum of Rs.1 lakh will be paid to the appellant over and above 30% of the profits. The loan is to be repaid by the firm. It is stated that the construction was over in 2019.

2. On 20.11.2023, the appellant sent Ext.B1 lawyer notice to respondents 1 and 2 seeking dissolution of the firm, alleging that a sum of Rs.1.2 Crores have been misappropriated. It is also stated that an Arbitrator has been appointed for settlement of the disputes. Thereafter on 13.12.2023, the appellant sent Ext.B2 to the respondents stating that the Arbitrator is initiating proceedings. The respondents sent a reply notice on 01.02.2024 stating that they did not agree to the appointment of the arbitrator by the appellant. This was followed by another notice of arbitration Ext.B4 dated 12.02.2024 to which Ext.B5 reply was sent on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In Ext.B5, which was sent on 24.02.2024, it is stated that there were no issues pending between the appellant and respondents 1 and 2, and there is no requirement for the appointment of any arbitrator. On 01.04.2024, the sole arbitrator appointed by the appellant sent Ext.B10 notice regarding the commencement of the arbitration. On 24.04.2024, the respondents appeared before the Arbitrator and sought time and filed an application to stop the proceedings.

3. While so, on 12.04.2024, respondents 1 and 2 approached the Additional District Court - VI, Ernakulam, with an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The case was list