IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 229 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 IN EP NO.341 OF 2023 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR / II ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: CKL NIDHI LIMITED THAIKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, ROOM NO. XXV/716/2ND FLOOR, THREE J COMPLEX P.O. THAIKKAD, THRISSUR-REP. BY GABRIEL, AGED 68 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, S/O. KURIAKKU, MAMMAYIPARAMBIL, THAIKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680104 BY ADVS. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R.RAJITHA CHITHRA S.BABU RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: MOHANAN.V.K AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.VATTAMPARAMBIL KANDAR KANDANASSERY VILLAGE, DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK-., PIN - 680102 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPC 229/2024 -2- 2025:KER:24388 JUDGMENT (Dated this the 18th day of March, 2025) The petitioner has approached this Court, challenging Ext.P2 order in EP No.341/2023 on the files of the Additional District Court-III, Thrissur, dated 07.11.2023. 2. The E.P was filed by the petitioner herein seeking execution of the award dated 18.04.2022. The Trial Court entertained a doubt regarding the maintainability of the execution petition in the light of the judgment in Hedge Finance Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam v. Bijish Joseph (2022 KHC 591) and dismissed the E.P on the finding that the Arbitrator was appointed after the amendment of the Act, and hence the very appointment is illegal and the award passed by the Arbitrator is also not enforceable. It is aggrieved by the same, the present original petition has been filed. 3. It is brought to the notice the judgment of this Court in OP(C) No.1035/2024 dated 05.02.2025, wherein OPC 229/2024 -3- 2025:KER:24388 similar issue has been considered by this Court. The petitioner seeks similar reliefs from this Court. The operative portion of the said judgment reads thus: “5. Coming to the facts of this case, it can be seen that along with Ext.P1 agreement and guarantee, Ext.P2 Arbitration agreement was also entered on the same day, wherein the company, borrower and guarantor have agreed to appoint Mr. Muralidharan Nair or Adv. Raja Sekhar V. as the sole arbitrator. So, the facts in Hedge Finance Pvt. Ltd, as well as this case, is not one and the same. 6. In view of the fact that the Arbitrator was appointed by consent of both parties at the time of agreement itself, I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 order passed by the execution court in E.P No. 55/2022 requires reconsideration. In the result, Ext.P4 is set aside and there will be a direction to the execution court to reconsider the order in E.P No. 55/2022 in A.R.C No. 46/2019, in the light of the observations as mentioned above” 4. The issue involved in this case is similar to that in OP(C) No.1035/2024 disposed of by this Court on 05.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner herein is also entitled to the same treatment as that of the petitioner in the above case. Hence, the original petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 05.02.2025 in OP(C) No.1035/2024 by OPC 229/2024 -4- 2025:KER:24388 setting aside Ext.P2 order in EP No.341/2023 on the files of the Additional District Court-III, dated 07.11.2023, with a direction to the Execution Court to reconsider EP No.341/2023. Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE JS OPC 229/2024 -5- 2025:KER:24388 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 229/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit -P1 A COPY OF AWARD DATED 18/4/22 IN AR (CKL NIDHI LTD) 69/21 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR Exhibit -P2 A COPY OF ORDER DATED 7/11/23 IN E.P. 341/23 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR Exhibit -P3 A COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 21/1/19 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT Exhibit -P4 A COPY OF E.P.341 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT THRISSUR.