##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 18TH BHADRA, 1948 AR NO. 53 OF 2026 PETITIONER/CLAIMANT:

M/S. KLM AXIVA FINVEST LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. NEEDS FINVEST LIMITED)

HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT KLM GRAND ESTATE, BYPASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM-

682024,REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. DHANESH K. S.

BY ADV SHRI.G.RENJITH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 BIJITHA SHAJAN W/O SHAJAN C S, CHALIPURATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680711

2 SHAJAN C S (DIED)

S/O SHANMUKHAN, CHALIPURATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O, THRISSUR., PIN - 680711

##PAGE2##

3 SHREEBADRA (MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS D/O LATE SHAJAN S, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, BIJITHA SHAJAN, W/O SHAJAN C S, CHALIPURATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O, THRISSUR., PIN - 680711

4 SHEHA (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS D/O LATE SHAJAN C S, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, BIJITHA SHAJAN, W/O SHAJAN C S, CHALIPURATH HOUSE, KARUVANNUR P.O, THRISSUR., PIN - 680711 BY ADV SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR ADV.SMT.SANJANA JAYAKUMAR THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

19.08.2026, THE COURT ON 09.09.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

##PAGE3##

CR S.MANU, J.

--------------------------------------------------

A.R.No.53 of 2026 -------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 09^th day of September, 2026

ORDER

Petitioner is a non-banking financial institution registered under the Companies Act, 2013. First respondent availed a loan of Rs.75,00,000/- from the petitioner by executing Annexure-2 agreement on 04.08.2015. The second respondent is the guarantor. It was agreed that the loan would be repaid in 20 monthly installments commencing from 31.07.2015. Annexure-2 contains an arbitration clause. According to the petitioner, there was failure on the part of the respondents to repay loan amount as agreed. Therefore, Annexure-3 notice was issued, invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement. Thereafter, an arbitrator was nominated. Respondents did not appear before the arbitrator and the arbitrator finally passed Annexure-5 award on 28.12.2018. Petitioner approached the third Additional District Court, Thrissur in EP No. 75 of 2020 seeking execution of Annexure-5 award. The learned Additional District Judge, relying on the judgment in Hedge Finance Private Limited (M/s.) Ernakulam v. Bijish Joseph [2022 KHC 591] held that the unilateral nomination of the arbitrator was illegal and hence the award was unenforceable. Accordingly, the EP was dismissed by order dated 24.09.2024. Petitioner thereafter filed Arbitration Request No.148 of 2025. By order dated 09.01.2026 the arbitration request was rejected by this Court holding that it was premature since no fresh notice was issued to the respondents to satisfy the requirement under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after the execution court dismissed the petition. Later, fresh notices were issued to the respondents on 12.01.2026.

##PAGE4## ##PAGE5##

Respondents received notices. However, there was no response from their side. Hence, the instant arbitration request was filed.

2. Notice was served and respondents entered appearance through counsel.

3. Heard Adv. G.Renjith, the learned counsel for petitioner and Adv.Sanjana Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4. They both prepared extensively and presented the case with passion.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been prosecuting arbitral proceedings diligently and in a bona fide manner. He submitted that indisputably, Annexure-2 contains an arbitration clause and the same was invoked by the petitioner when there was default in repayment of the loan by the respondents. He submitted that there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents before the arbitrator nominated in the first instance and an award was passed by the learned arbitrator. Subsequently, the execution court found that the nomination of the arbitrator was unilateral