IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

FRIDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 AR NO.49 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

M.S.JAYAKUMARI AGED 70 YEARS W/O.B.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JAYAKRISHNA, 112 SHANKAR NAGAR, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 040, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, B.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JAYAKRISHNA, 112 SHANKAR NAGAR, KAIMANAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695040 BY ADVS.

SHYAM PADMAN C.M.ANDREWS BOBY M.SEKHAR LAYA MARY JOSEPH HARISH ABRAHAM ASHWATHI SHYAM SWATHY SUDHIR RAM MOHAN RESPONDENTS:

1 K.A.JOSEPH AGED 72 YEARS S/O.LATE VARKEY ESTHAPANOEAS, BUILDING NO.37/2990, KALLUNGAL HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN, PIN - 682017

2 MUNNAR WOODS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 WITH REGISTRATION NO.1455 OF 2004, MUTTEPADATH BUILDING, MAMANGALAM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.A.JOSEPH, PIN - 682025 BY ADVS.

LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN GEORGE A.CHERIAN(K/611/2014)

GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)(G-81)

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 28^th day of March, 2025 This Arbitration Request has been filed by the petitioner, invoking Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate the differences and disputes that have arisen between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent under a partnership deed.

Brief facts:

2. Petitioner and the 1^st respondent had entered into Annexure A1 partnership deed dated 24.11.2003 to constitute a firm styled as ‘Munnar Woods’. The said firm is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The object of the partnership was to carry on the business of resorts, motels, hotels etc. A property was purchased in Pallivasal Village of Idukki District and construction of buildings to be used as resorts commenced therein. Amounts contributed by the petitioner as well as amounts borrowed by the 2^nd respondent partnership were used for the said purpose. On 01.04.2005, the resort became functional. Petitioner was made to believe by the 1^st respondent that the business turnover was low and upon her enquiry regarding the income generated, she was provided with false details. While so, on 21.05.2007, the resort building was demolished by the District Collector and officials, alleging that the property wherein it was situated had already vested with the Government. Litigations including a Writ Petition and a civil suit were initiated against the Government regarding such demolition inter alia seeking damages to the tune of Rs.13,84,61,000/-. Petitioner had, from documents unravelled during the litigation and those obtained from the Tax offices come to know that the turnover of the resort for the period of 25 months during which it had been functional, was substantial. It was then realised that respondent No.1 had siphoned off huge amounts to the joint accounts created by him fabricating the signature of the petitioner. Thus the 1^st respondent had deprived the petitioner of amounts that were legally and contractually due to her as a partner under Annexure A1 partnership deed. Petitioner learnt that the 1^st respondent was constructing a building at Vytilla, Ernakulam, using the misappropriated money and was taking hasty steps to alienate the same. Petitioner hence resolved to invoke the arbitration clause in Annexure A1 deed and in furtherance thereof filed a Section 9 application numbered as C.M.A.(Arbitration) No.77 of 2023 before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam (Annexure A2). An ad interim order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure A4) was rendered by the court in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, Annexure A5 statutory notice dated 01.06.2023 was issued to the 1^st respondent inter alia conveying the intention to invoke the arbitration option to which Annexure A6 was received in reply. On 04.10.2023, the Commercial Court vacated the ad interim order and dismis