Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 2775
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANU, J
POORAM FINSERV PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
K.RAJAMANIKKAM – Respondent
AR NO. 55 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SABU GEORGE, SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SMT.AISWARYA MOHAN, SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON
For the Respondents: SRI.SUDEEP ARAVIND PANICKER, SHRI.A.S.DILEEP, SHRI.P.BINOD, SHRI.K.Y.SUDHEENDRAN, SMT.SUSEELA DILEEP, SHRI.K.N.HARISHANKAR
Failure to issue a fresh notice for arbitration leads to a premature request, not conforming with established legal precedents.
Headnote:In the context of arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court determined that the prior arbitrator's award was a nullity due to unilateral appointment, necessitating a fresh arbitration process and notice to the respondent, as established in M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited v. Mangalan. The Court concluded that the petitioner's request, not having followed the proper notice procedure, was premature and subsequently closed the request, allowing for the possibility of a new notice and renewed court approach.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of arbitration is contingent on proper notice. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's observations on nullity of award and necessity of fresh proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 3. final ruling allows issuing fresh notice for further actions. (Para 3) |
ORDER
The petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent and the arbitrator passed an award on 20.09.2017. E.P.No.168 of 2018 was filed before the District Court, Palakkad, for executing the award. On 16.08.2024, by Annexure C order, the learned Additional District Judge closed E.P.No.168 of 2018 holding that the award was not enforceable. The learned Judge found that the appointment of the arbitrator was unilateral and hence the arbitration award passed was a nullity. The petitioner has filed this arbitration request for nominating an arbitrator to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings.
2. In M/s.Agro Indus Credits Limited v. Mangalan [ 2026 (1) KLT 1 ] this Court held that when an arbitration award is set aside, it is necessary to issue fresh notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings. In this case, the award was found to be a nullity by the Execution Court. Under the said circumstances also it is necessary to issue a fresh notice to initiate arbitration proceedings afresh in view of the law laid down in the above judgment. This arbitration request has been filed without issuing fresh notice to the respondent. Hence this arbitration request is premature and it is accordingly closed.
3. However, I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to issue fresh notice and to approach this Court again.
