[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sidharthan Santhosh Kumar vs Haris on 15 December, 2025
2025:KER:96507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
AR NO. 232 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SIDHARTHAN SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O SREEDHARAN.P,
PANDIYATH HOUSE, CHITHRAGIRI P.O.,
MUPPAINAD, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673577
BY ADVS.
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SMT.MARY CATHERINE PRIYANKA P.S.
SHRI.ALEX TOM JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 HARIS
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O SULAMAI,
PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE,
KARADIPPARA, NENMENI P.O.,
WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673593
2 BIJU K. JOSEPH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O K.C. JOSEPH,
KIZHIPPILLIL HOUSE,
VATTUVADI, KUPPADI P.O.,
WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673592
3 T. CHANDRAN LANEESH
AGED 41 YEARS
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
2
THOTTATH HOUSE, CHEERAL P.O.,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673595
BY ADVS.
SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN
SHRI.N.U.HARIKRISHNA
THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
3
JUDGMENT
Disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the
respondents. They are partners of M/s. My Promise Gold and
Diamonds LLP. Initially there were only two partners as seen from
Annexure A. Subsequently, retirements and inductions happened.
This is clear from Annexures B, C, D and E.
2. The petitioner issued Annexure F notice dated
20.09.2025 to the respondents alleging that there are several
issues to be resolved with regard to the business of the LLP and
suggested to appoint a retired District Judge as the sole Arbitrator,
invoking the arbitration clause namely clause 34 in Annexure C
agreement. The respondents were not amenable to arbitration by
the said Arbitrator suggested by the petitioner. Therefore, this
arbitration request was filed.
3. Notice was issued and the respondents have
entered appearance through Counsel. They have filed a counter
affidavit.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
also the learned Counsel for the respondents. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner reiterated the averments in the arbitration
request and contended that the disputes between the parties can
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
be resolved only through arbitration. The learned Counsel for the
respondent on the other hand submitted that the case projected
by the petitioner in Annexure F notice as also in the arbitration
request is incorrect and in fact the respondents are not active in
the business of the LLP. He submitted that unnecessarily the
petitioner is dragging the respondent to a litigation and forcing
them to spend for the same. In the counter affidavit filed, the
allegations and averments in the arbitration request have been
refuted. However, in view of the limited jurisdiction vested with
this Court under Section 11, it is not for this Court to consider the
allegations and counter allegations and also to make observations
regarding the same. Such disputes are entirely within the domain
of the Arbitrator. I am satisfied that there is an arbitration clause in
Annexure C agreement which binds the parties. It is also clear
from the pleadings and documents that disputes have arisen
between the partners regarding the affairs of the partnership firm.
Therefore, I find that this arbitration request can be allowed
and it is accordingly disposed with the following directions:-
1. The Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre is
directed to nominate a District Judge (Retd.)
from Panel-III, preferably from Wayanad, as
the sole Arbitrator to resolve the disputes
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
that have arisen between the petitioner and
the respondents under Annexure C
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 the learned Arbitrator of the
Kerala High Court Arbitration Centre shall be
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
governed by Rule 28 of the Kerala High Court
(Arbitration Centre) Rules, 2025. The manner
in which the fees and costs payable by the
parties shall be governed by Rule 27 of the
Kerala High Court (Arbitration Centre) Rules,
2025.
6. If the learned Arbitrator needs the assistance
of an expert, then he is at liberty to seek
such assistance in the course of the
arbitration proceedings.
Sd/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
ANK
AR NO. 232 OF 2025 2025:KER:96507
APPENDIX OF AR NO. 232 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A A COPY OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 24/04/2023
ANNEXURE B A COPY OF THE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT DATED
09/06/2023
ANNEXURE C A COPY OF THE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT DATED
08/01/2024
ANNEXURE D A COPY OF AMENDMENT AGREEMENT DATED
24/04/2024
ANNEXURE E A COPY OF THE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT DATED
10/12/2024
ANNEXURE F A COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT ON
20/09/2025
ANNEXURE G A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF LAWYER NOTICE BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 22/09/2025
ANNEXURE H A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD
EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF LAWYER NOTICE BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25/09/2025
ANNEXURE I A COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD ALONG
WITH INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE POSTAL
AUTHORITIES
