Arbitration agreements require adherence to specified terms, and courts can enforce arbitration upon valid contractual provisions.

O R D E R

On 19.05.2023, Annexure A1 agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent appointing the petitioner as the business correspondent of the respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that under the agreement, the petitioner had been operating physical branches of respondent at 13 locations across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State. Subsequently on 11.04.2024, Annexure A2 Addendum agreement was executed.

2. Later, on 29.07.2024, respondent sent a demand letter. On 11.10.2024 and 31.12.2024 respondent issued e-mail communications invoking the first Loss Default Guarantee, applying a 5% guarantee at the port folio level which according to the petitioner, constitutes a clear deviation from the agreed terms set out in the addendum agreement, Annexure A2. The petitioner on 05.02.2025 sent a formal letter of termination to the respondent as the petitioner was unable to continue with the arrangement.

3. The respondent also issued a termination letter to the petitioner stating that Annexure A1 agreement will be terminated on 14.04.2025. On 12.05.2025, the petitioner issued a demand notice to the respondent. Copy of the same has been produced as Annexure A3. The demands raised were denied by the respndent by a reply sent on 09.06.2025. A copy of the letter dated 09.06.2025 has been produced as Annexure A4. It is indicated in Annexure A4 that the petitioner may invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement dated

19.05.2023.

4. On 09.06.2025, the petitioner issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause. A copy of the notice is produced as Annexure A5. It was suggested in the notice that an Arbitrator from the Panel maintained by the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre may be chosen as the Arbitrator. The same was not agreed by the respondent. Resondent issued Annexure A6 notice on 23.06.2025. Petitioner responded to Annexure A6 by another notice dated 04.07.2025. A copy of he said letter is produced as Annexure A7. Petitioner suggested names of two former Judges of this Court for selecting the Arbitrator. However the respondent by Annexure A8 disagreed with the petitioner. Yet another letter Annexure A9 was issued to the petitioner on 05.08.2025. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court with this Arbitration Request.

5. Parties were referred for mediation. However the disputes have not been resolved.

6. When this case was taken up for hearing, counsel on either side submitted that serious disputes have arisen between the parties and the same are to be resolved through arbitration. Apart from hearing the learned cunsel for the petitioenr and the learned counsel for the respondent, I have perused the memorandum of Arbitration Request and documents.

7. I am satisfied that there is a valid arbitration clause in Annexure A1 agreement. The parties are at disagreement on the issue of nominating an Arbitrator. Therefore I am satisfied that this Arbitration Request can be allowed. Following directions are therefore issued:

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate an Arbitrator from Panel - I, preferably from Thrissur, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents under Annexure A1 Agreement.

2. The learned Arbitrator may entertain all issues between the parties in connection with the said Agreements, including questions of jurisdiction and limitation, if any, raised by the parties. All contentions of the parties are left open and they are at liberty to raise their claims and counterclaims, if any, before the learned Arbitrator, in accordance with law.

3. The Registry shall communicate the substance of this order to the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre within ten days and the Centre shall inform the learned Arb