The court upheld the enforcement of an arbitration clause in a payment dispute and authorized the appointment of an arbitrator.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU MONDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1947 AR NO.290 OF 2025 PETITIONER:

AASHIQ AHAMED I AGED 34 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM A, RESIDING AT METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD TOWN, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 BY ADVS.

SRI.MANU SRINATH SRI.T.H.ARAVIND RESPONDENT:

VIGNESH G RESIDING AT KARTHIKEYAM HOUSE, DEVI NAGAR, THATHAMANGALAM P.O., THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.K.RAJEEV SHRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

Annexure A1 is a copy of a Deferred Payment Agreement entered into between the applicant and respondent on 07.01.2025 whereby the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay a total sum of Rs.6,25,810/- to the applicant. It is submitted by the petitioner that the said agreement was executed in continuation of some business transactions. A payment schedule was incorporated in Annexure A1. According to the applicant, the respondent did not honour his commitments under Annexure A1. As Annexure A1 contains an arbitration clause, a notice as contemplated under Section 23 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was issued on 23.10.2025. Annexure A3 would show that the notice was served on the respondent. As there was no response from the respondent, this arbitration request was filed.

2. On notice, the respondent entered appearance through counsel. A dispute was raised that the notice was not served on the respondent. However, the petitioner produced a copy of the booking slip obtained on sending the notice by speed post which would show that the notice was addressed to the respondent. The tracking report obtained from the website of the postal department produced as Annexure A3 would show that the item was delivered on 31.10.2025. Moreover, as per Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 , it is sufficient to issue written communication in the correct address of the opposite party. Therefore I do not find any merit in the objection raised.

3. The validity of the arbitration clause is not disputed. Fact that serious disputes have been arisen between the petitioner and the respondent is well evident.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this arbitration request can be allowed. Hence the following orders are passed:

1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is directed to nominate an Arbitrator from Panel-V, preferably from Ernakulam 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 Arbitrator within a further period of one week and shall obtain duly signed Form 3 as required under Rule 20(4) of the Kerala High Court (Arbitration Centre) Rules, 2025 and forward the same to this Court.

4. Upon receipt of the Form 3, the Registry shall issue a certified copy of this order with a copy of the Form 3 appended to the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre. The original of the Disclosure Statement shall be retained by the Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre.

5. The fees of