PURUSHOTHAMAN THITTA vs POTHAN RAJAN

2026:KER:37218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
ST
MONDAY, THE 1 DAY OF JUNE 2026 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 2308 OF 2025
PETITIONER(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:
PURUSHOTHAMAN THITTA
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O THITTA RAMAN, BUSINESS,
PIONEER AUTO AND ENGINEERING WORKS, NEAR
DHANALAKSHMI HOSPITAL, KANNUR., PIN - 670002
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
SHRI.SANAND RAMAKRISHNAN
SHRI.AUGUSTINE P.
SMT.CISSY MATHEWS
SHRI.GREGORY PRINCE MYLADI
SHRI.THOMAS MARTIN K.
RESPONDENT(S)/CLAIM PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT:
1 POTHAN RAJAN
S/O NARAYANAN POTHAN, KAUSTHAM, PALLIKUNNU
(P.O), CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT.,
PIN - 670011
2 SURESH POTHAN
S/O NARAYANAN POTHAN, MANDEN RAGHAVAN ROAD,
KANNOTHUMCHAL ROAD (P.O), KANNUR., PIN - 670006
BY ADVS.
SHRI.AKHIL K.M.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
2
SRI.T.RAMESH BABU, FOR R2
SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
SMT.NIMISHA P. SHANMUGHAN
SMT.RESMI S.S.
SRI.P.V.VINOD (BENGALAM), FOR R1
SMT.D.REETHA
SMT.ANJALI NAIR
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.05.2026, THE COURT ON 01.06.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
3
EASWARAN S., J “C.R”
--------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
---------------------------------
st
Dated this the 1 day of June, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Can the High Court exercise its Jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order
of the Arbitrator upholding his Jurisdiction in an
application under Section 16(2) of the Arbitration and
Reconciliation Act, 1996, (for short ‘the Act’)?. The
petitioner contends that the order is not appealable
under Section 37 of the Act and that he has no other
remedy except to invoke the Jurisdiction of this Court.
Respondents also do not dispute the same, but contend
that the petitioner must wait till the final award is passed
by the arbitrator and thereafter invoke the remedy under
Section 34 of the Act, if so advised. This Court is called
upon to resolve this short issue.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
4
2. The facts in the case is not seriously disputed
and are as follow-
A.R No.169/2024 was filed under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of
an Arbitrator to arbitrate upon the dispute between
respondents 1 and 2. This Court by order dated
21.01.2025 appointed Smt.K.P.Prasanna Kumari, Retired
st
District Judge, as sole Arbitrator. Accordingly, the 1
respondent filed Ext.P2 claim petition. The relief sought
for in Ext.P2 claim petition is basically to record the
division of assets and liabilities of the company as per
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
17.09.2021. The MOU pertains to certain division of
assets and liabilities in respect of three companies
namely Pioneer Cars India Private Limited, Pioneer
Motors (Kannur) Private Limited and Wayanad Vehicles
Private Limited, which are companies registered under
the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The MOU
also contained certain arrangements between the
respondents in a partnership firm of which this Court is

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
5
nd
not concerned with. The petitioner, who is the 2
respondent in the arbitration case, filed an application
under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, seeking to drop the arbitration proceedings in
respect of the companies in question on the ground that
the Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to decide the claim.
According to him, the jurisdiction exclusively vest with
National Company Law Tribunal. The said application
was ordered by Ext.P7 order holding that nowhere the
company is sought to be wound up nor dissolved and
that the arbitrator can make decisions about the
ownership and shareholding of the companies including
dividing shares among the owners. The said order is
impugned in this original petition.
3. Heard Shri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Shri.P.V.Vinod(Bengalam),
st
the learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent and
Shri.T.Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel appearing for
nd
the 2 respondent.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
6
4. Shri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner contended that the matters
relating to the companies cannot be arbitrated, and that
the remedy of the respondents is to move an application
under Section 241 read with Section 242 of the
Companies Act, 2013, before the National Company Law
Tribunal. He further pointed out that in a case where a
division of assets is ordered, necessarily, the petitioner
who is a shareholder will be adversely affected by the
said division. He further pointed out that the petitioner is
not a signatory to MOU entered between the
respondents and therefore the respondents cannot seek
to bind the petitioner with the terms and conditions of
the MOU. He further pointed out that, if the MOU
attempts to divide the assets of the company, it directly
impacts the company’s structural integrity, the creditors
and the other shareholders, and the Arbitrator cannot
grant the structural remedies, such as restructuring of
the company or directing the asset management for
which the jurisdiction exclusively vest with the National

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
7
Company Law Tribunal under Section 242 of the
Companies Act, 2013. He further pointed out that while
the Directors can resolve the dispute via arbitration, the
dispute in the present case would certainly lead to the
operation of the minority shareholders, which the
National Company Law Tribunal retains the jurisdiction.
In support of his contention relied on various decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia and Others
v. Durga Trading Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1] , Booz
Allen and Hamilton INC. v. SBI Home Finance
Limited and Others [(2011) 5 SCC 532] ,
R.Subbulakshmi and Others v. R.Venkitapathy and
Others [2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5303], Haryana
Telecom Limited v. Sterlite Industries (India)
Limited [(1999) 5 SCC 688] , IDFC First Bank Limited
v. Hitachi MGRM Net limited [ (2023) 3 High Court
Cases(Del 660)] , Surender Kumar Singhal and others
v. Arun Kumar Bhalotia and others [(2021) SCC
Online Del 3708], Bhaven Construction Through
Authorised Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
8
Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Limited and Another [(2022) 1 SCC 75] and Deep
Industries Limited v. Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Limited and Another [(2020) 15 SCC
706].
5. Per contra, Shri. Akhil K.M., the learned
st
counsel appearing for the 1 respondent contended that
the Arbitrator has not decided based on the respective
claims and therefore the present original petition is
highly premature. Merely because the division of assets
take place, the right of the shareholder is not in any way
affected. The company is not being wound up in terms of
the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and the
respective companies continue to function. The purpose
of arbitration is only to give effect to the Memorandum
of Understanding executed between the parties and that
nd
the failure of the 2 respondent to abide by the terms
and conditions of the same had led to the initiation of the
proceedings. He further pointed out that the petitioner
was impleaded in the arbitration proceedings without

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
9
any objection and hence will have to await for the
outcome of the arbitration case and cannot seek to
interdict the orders passed under Section 16 of the Act,
through an original petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. He further pointed out that the
order of arbitration rejecting an application can be
interfered only if it is ex facie illegal and without
jurisdiction and perverse. In support of his contention
relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Bhaven Construction Through Authorised
Signatory Premjibhai K. Shah v. Executive Engineer
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and
Another [(2022) 1 SCC 75] and MCm Worldwide
Private Limited v. Construction Industry
development Council [2026 SCC OnLine SC 717
{ 2026 INSC 425}].
6. I have considered the rival submissions raised
across the Bar and the orders passed by the Arbitrator
under Section 16 of the Act.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
10
7. Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, enables the Arbitrator to rule on its own
jurisdiction. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that this
Court had exercised its powers under Section 11 of the
Act; by appointing an Arbitrator, the opposing party can
always raise the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to arbitrate
on the claims by preferring an application under Section
16 of the Act. Once such application is filed, the
Arbitrator is empowered to rule upon its competency.
Sub-Section 5 of Section 16 of the Act provides that the
Arbitral Tribunal shall decide on a plea referred to in
Sub-Section (2) or Sub-Section (3) and, in case it rejects
the plea under Sub-Section (2) or Sub-Section (3),
proceed with the arbitration. Section 37 of the Act
specifically deals with appealable orders. Sub-Section (2)
(a) of Section 37 of the Act, states that an appeal shall lie
to a court from order of the Arbitral Tribunal, accepting
the plea under Sub-Section (2) or Sub-Section (3) of
Section 16 of the Act. In the present case, the Arbitrator
had not accepted the plea of the petitioner under

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
11
Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, it is
beyond doubt that the order impugned in the original
petition is not appealable under Section 37 of the Act,
before the District Court.
8. The further question before this Court is
whether the petitioner should await a final Award being
passed to avail his remedy under Section 34 of the Act or
can come before this Court in proceedings under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Section 5 of the Act limits the extent of Judicial
Intervention. It reads as under.
Sec- 5- Extent of Judicial Intervention-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, in matters
governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall
intervene except where so provided under this
Part.
Before moving forward, this court must decide whether
the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India are in anyway fettered by virtue
of provisions of Section 5 of the Act.
10. In SBPSCO v. Patel Engineering Limited and
Another [(2005) 8 SCC 618] a Seven Judges Bench of

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
12
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once a Arbitral
Tribunal or an Arbitrator is appointed, the High Court
would not interfere with the proceedings of the tribunal
or the arbitrator and that the party must wait to the final
orders to be passed and avail the remedy under Section
37 or in terms of Section 34 of the Act.
11. In Deep Industries v. Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation limited [(2020) 15 SCC 706]- the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the High Court would be
extremely circumspect in interfering with the orders
passed by the arbitral tribunal under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. However, the supreme court
clarified that the interference is restricted to orders that
are passed which are patently lacking in inherent
jurisdiction.
12. In IDFC First Bank Limited v. Hitachi Mgrm
Limited [(2023) 3 High Court Cases(del) 660], a Single
Bench of the High Court held that the powers under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India must be
sparingly invoked by the High Court. The Single Bench

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
13
of the Delhi High Court relied on the earlier decision of
that court in Surender Kumar Singhal and others v.
Arun Kumar Bhalotia and others [2021 SCC Online
(Del) 3708].
13. The issue regarding the exercise of power under
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against
the orders of the arbitral tribunal again came up for
consideration before a three judges’ bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaven Constructions
through Authorized Signatory Premjibhai K Shah v.
Executive Engineer Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Limited and Another [(2022) 1 SCC 75]. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court after an extensive consideration of the
precedents on the point followed the decision in Deep
Industries (Supra) and held that except in circumstances
of exceptional rarity the High Court shall not exercise
the powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
14. In MCM worldwide Private Limited v. M/c
Construction Industry Development Council [2026

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
14
INSC 425], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an
order passed under Section 16(2) of the Act rejecting the
plea on the Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is not in the
nature of the interim award and hence not appealable.
st
15. Learned Counsel for the 1 respondent placed
heavy reliance on the above decisions to contend that
the petitioner must wait for the final award to be passed
by the arbitrator.
16. However, this Court is unable to agree with the
above submission. In a given case where the arbitral
tribunal or the arbitrator acts beyond its Jurisdiction or
for that matter a claimant initiates an arbitration on a
dispute which is not arbitrable or governed by a separate
mechanism provided under a statute, the opposite party
is certainly entitled to raise the question of Jurisdiction
and if it is rejected, can certainly approach this Court
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as
the case may be. In such cases, this Court can examine
the case to find out whether the dispute is arbitrable or a
separate mechanism to resolve the dispute is provided

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
15
under a statute. Hence this Court is inclined to hold that
the present original petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable.
17. Next, it is to be decided whether the dispute now
st
raised by the 1 respondent is arbitrable or not. This in
turn will decide whether this court must exercise its
jurisdiction and interfere with the order impugned. A
st
reading of the claim petition shows that the 1
respondent has prayed for the following reliefs:-
1. Division of Pace Motors by equitable division of
assets and liabilities of pace motors based on
ownership proportions ie 50% each
2. Division or by out shares of Pioneer
Motors( Kannur) ltd by division of assets and
liabilities in accordance with share holding
proportion(45% for claimant, 48 % first
respondent and 7% fir Mr Purushothaman
Thitta. Alternative a buy out of shares by one or
more parties determined through independent
valuation.
3. Payment of salary to the claimant for last 3 years
4. Discharge of the liability of 1 crore to the
claimants son varun pothan
5. Allotting M.s Pioneer Motors (Kannur) Pvt Ltd to
this claimant after adjusting the owelty amount
if any to this claimant or otherwise.
18. A reading of the above relief shows that,
essentially what is sought for is for restructuring of the

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
16
company. The entire basis for initiation of the arbitration
proceedings is the arbitration clause in the MOU signed
by the respondents between themselves. Pertinently, a
glance at the MOU, a copy of which is placed for perusal
of this court shows that the company is not a party to the
MOU. It is between the respondents 1 and 2 in their
individual capacity. One of the most crucial points to be
noted is that there is clause for selling the assets to the
third party on a price mutually agreed upon. This is
where the question of arbitrability arises.
19. Moreover, from the claim petition filed before
the Arbitrator it is evident that the matter pertains to the
division of the assets of the three companies in question
of which the petitioner is a minority shareholder. If in a
given case, a case of total lack of Jurisdiction of the
arbitrator is made out, it will be wholly impermissible for
this court to hold that, the petitioner must still wait till
the final award is passed by the arbitrator.
20. The next question to be decided is whether the
dispute regarding restructuring of a company is

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
17
arbitrable. This question assumes importance in view of
the specific plea raised by the petitioner that the subject
matter of arbitration is not arbitrable.
21. As stated the basis of initiation of the arbitration
proceedings is the MOU. Merely because the
respondents 1 and 2 reduced their bargain into writing
in the form of MOU which contains the clause for
arbitration , will not lead to an inference that the subject
nd
matter is arbitrable. Russel on Arbitration (22 Edn)
page 28 para 2.007) observed- “ Not all matters are
capable of being referred to arbitration. As a matter of
English law certain matters are reserved for the court
alone and if a tribunal purports to deal with them the
resulting award will be unenforceable. These include
matter were the type of remedy required is not one
which an Arbitral Tribunal is empowered to give”.
22. In Booz Allen and Hamilton INC v. SBI
Home Finance Limited and others [(2011) 5 SCC
532], the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the
examples of non arbitrable disputes as (i) disputes

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
18
relating to rights and liabilities which give rise out of
criminal offences, (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to
divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal
rights, child custody, (iii) guardianship matters, (iv)
insolvency and winding up matters (v) testamentary
matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and
succession certificate) (vi) eviction or tenancy matters
governed by special statures where the tenant enjoys
statutory protection against eviction and only the
specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant
eviction or decide the dispute.
23. In Vidya Drolia and Others v. Durga
Trading Corporation [(2021) 2 SCC 1], the question
whether the subject matter of the functioning of a
company is arbitrable or not came up for consideration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid fourfold test for
determining when the subject matter of a dispute in an
arbitration agreement is not arbitrable and laid down the
following test
76.1. (1) When cause of action and subject-
matter of the dispute relates to actions in rem,

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
19
that do not pertain to subordinate rights in
personam that arise from rights in rem.
76.2. (2) When cause of action and subject-matter
of the dispute affects third-party rights; have erga
omnes effect; require centralised adjudication, and
mutual adjudication would not be appropriate and
enforceable.
76.3. (3) When cause of action and subject-matter
of the dispute relates to inalienable sovereign and
public interest functions of the State and hence
mutual adjudication would be unenforceable.
76.4. (4) When the subject-matter of the dispute is
expressly or by necessary implication non-
arbitrable as per mandatory statute(s).
76.5. The aforesaid test have to be applied with
care and caution. These tests are not watertight
compartments; they dovetail and overlap, albeit
when applied holistically and pragmatically will
help and assist in determining and ascertaining
with great degree of certainty when as per law in
India, a dispute or subject-matter is non-
arbitrable. Only when the answer is affirmative
that the subject-matter of the dispute would be
non-arbitrable.
24. Yet another aspect to be considered is whether
the dispute now raised before the arbitrator falls withing
the ambit of the powers of National Company law
Tribunal. This will in turn enable this Court to decide
whether the finding of the arbitrator that he has the
power to decide the allotment of shares is correct or not.

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
20
25. To find out whether the dispute falls within the
power of the National Company law Tribunal or not, it is
important to consider two provisions under the
Companies Act, 2013. Section 241(1)(a) and Section 242
of the Companies Act, 2013. It reads as under:-
241. Application to Tribunal for relief in cases of
oppression, etc. —(1) Any member of a company who
complains that—
xxxxxxxxx

(b) the material change, not being a change brought
about by, or in the interests of, any creditors, including
debenture holders or any class of shareholders of the company,
has taken place in the management or control of the company,
whether by an alteration in the Board of Directors, or manager,
or in the ownership of the company’s shares, or if it has no
share capital, in its membership, or in any other manner
whatsoever, and that by reason of such change, it is likely that
the affairs of the company will be conducted in a manner
prejudicial to its interests or its members or any class of
members, may apply to the Tribunal, provided such member has
a right to apply under section 244, for an order under this
Chapter.
If an application under Section 241 of the
Companies Act, 2013 is received, the same must be dealt
by the tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 242
of the Companies Act, 2013. Section 242 of the
Companies Act, 2013 reads as under;

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
21
242. Powers of Tribunal. —(1) If, on any application
made under section 241, the Tribunal is of the opinion—
(a) that the company’s affairs have been or are
being conducted in a manner prejudicial or oppressive to
any member or members or prejudicial to public interest
or in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the company;
and
(b) that to wind up the company would
unfairly prejudice such member or members, but that
otherwise the facts would justify the making of a winding-
up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that
the company should be wound up,
the Tribunal may, with a view to bringing to an end the
matters complained of, make such order as it thinks fit.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers
under sub-section (1), an order under that sub- section
may provide for—
(a) the regulation of conduct of affairs of the
company in future;
(b) the purchase of shares or interests of any
members of the company by other members thereof or by
the company;
(c) in the case of a purchase of its shares by
the company as aforesaid, the consequent reduction of its
share capital;
(d) restrictions on the transfer or allotment of
the shares of the company;
(e) the termination, setting aside or
modification, of any agreement, howsoever arrived at,
between the company and the managing director, any
other director or manager, upon such terms and
conditions as may, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be just
and equitable in the circumstances of the case;
(f) the termination, setting aside or
modification of any agreement between the company and
any person other than those referred to in clause (e):
Provided that no such agreement shall be
terminated, set aside or modified except after due notice
and after obtaining the consent of the party concerned;
(g) the setting aside of any transfer, delivery
of goods, payment, execution or other act relating to
property made or done by or against the company within
three months before the date of the application under this
section, which would, if made or done by or against an
individual, be deemed in his insolvency to be a fraudulent
preference;

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
22
(h) removal of the managing director,
manager or any of the directors of the company;
(i) recovery of undue gains made by any
managing director, manager or director during the period
of his appointment as such and the manner of utilisation
of the recovery including transfer to Investor Education
and Protection Fund or repayment to identifiable victims;
(j) the manner in which the managing director
or manager of the company may be appointed subsequent
to an order removing the existing managing director or
manager of the company made under clause (h);
(k) appointment of such number of persons as
directors, who may be required by the Tribunal to report
to the Tribunal on such matters as the Tribunal may
direct;
(l) imposition of costs as may be deemed fit by
the Tribunal;
(m) any other matter for which, in the opinion
of the Tribunal, it is just and equitable that provision
should be made.
(3) A certified copy of the order of the Tribunal
under sub-section (1) shall be filed by the company with
the Registrar within thirty days of the order of the
Tribunal.
(4) The Tribunal may, on the application of any
party to the proceeding, make any interim order which it
thinks fit for regulating the conduct of the company’s
affairs upon such terms and conditions as appear to it to
be just and equitable.
(4A) At the conclusion of the hearing of the case in
respect of sub-section (3) of section 241, the Tribunal
shall record its decision stating therein specifically as to
whether or not respondent is a fit and proper person to
hold the officer of director or any other officer connected
with the conduct and management of any company.]
(5) Where an order of the Tribunal under sub-
section (1) makes any alteration in the memorandum or
articles of a company, then, notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the company shall not have power,
except to the extent, if any, permitted in the order, to
make, without the leave of the Tribunal, any alteration
whatsoever which is inconsistent with the order, either in
the memorandum or in the articles.
(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the
alterations made by the order in the memorandum or
articles of a company shall, in all respects, have the same
effect as if they had been duly made by the company in

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
23
accordance with the provisions of this Act and the said
provisions shall apply accordingly to the memorandum or
articles so altered.
(7) A certified copy of every order altering, or giving
leave to alter, a company’s memorandum or articles, shall
within thirty days after the making thereof, be filed by the
company with the Registrar who shall register the same.
(8) If a company contravenes the provisions of sub-
section (5), the company shall be punishable with fine
which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which
may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees and every officer of
the company who is in default shall be punishable 1*
with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand
]
rupees but which may extend to [one lakh rupees
The reading of Section 242 of the Companies Act,
2013 shows that the powers of the tribunal are extensive
st
in nature. As stated afore, the 1 respondent has
basically claimed restructuring of the company including
change of Managing Director and division of assets of
the company including the sale to the third parties. The
arbitrator on the other hand proceeds to hold that she
has the power to entertain the claim and decide on the
division of shares. It is at this point; the conflict of
Jurisdiction arises especially since a specialized forum is
created under the Companies Act, 2013. Unfortunately,
the arbitrator could not properly comprehend the issue
and erroneously rejected the objection. Therefore, when
it is evident from records that, the claim before the

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
24
Arbitrator touches upon functioning and restructuring of
the companies, which falls under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal under
Section 241 read with Section 242 of the Companies Act,
2013, it is inevitable that this Court must hold that
process of restructuring and re-division of the assets of
the companies is of statutory in nature and cannot be a
subject matter of a personal contract.
26. Albeit, this Courts finds that the dispute before
the arbitrator qua the companies is essentially an intra-
company dispute. Pertinently, the company is not a
signatory to the MOU, whereas it is between two
brothers. Moreover, the presences of a specialized
statutory form like National Company Tribunal which is
given exclusive power to adjudicate on the dispute
touching upon the structure of the company and the
rights of a minority shareholder, is a clear indication that
the subject matter of the dispute is non- arbitrable.
Further, it is undeniable that the disputes raised in the
claim petition constitutes an action in rem and not in

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
25
personum
27. Now what remains to be considered by this
Court is whether the petitioner should wait till the
outcome of the arbitration case to invoke the remedy
under Section 34 of the Act. Once this Court has
concluded that the scope of claim in respect of the three
companies is certainly hit by the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013, there is no point in directing the
arbitration proceedings to continue. In such
circumstances, this Court is inclined to exercise its
powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India to
terminate the proceedings in respect of the three
companies in question mentioned in Ext.P2 claim
petition.
28. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioner
is entitled to succeed in part and this original petition is
consequently allowed. Ext.P7 order, insofar as it
proceeds to reject, non-suit, the jurisdictional objection
raised by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act in
relation to the three companies specifically enumerated

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
26
in Relief No.1 of Ext.P1 claim petition, is found to be
legally unsustainable and is therefore hereby interfered
with. As an sequitur flowing from the aforesaid
declaration, the arbitral proceedings presently pending
shall, insofar as they relate to or are sought to be
continued against the said three companies, stand
terminated forthwith, there being no surviving arbitral
jurisdiction exercisable against them within the contours
of the present proceedings. Such termination, however,
shall be confined strictly to the said entities and shall
not, by implication or otherwise, affect the
maintainability or continuance of the arbitral
proceedings against any other contesting parties who
are otherwise amenable to the arbitral process in
accordance with law. Further, in order to obviate any
ambiguity on the legal consequences arising from this
adjudication, it is clarified that the findings rendered
herein shall not be construed as a pronouncement on the
merits of the inter se disputes, rights, obligations,
shareholding claims, or any other corporate and

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
27
statutory issues that may arise between the parties
under the framework of the Companies Act, 2013. All
such rights and remedies, available to the petitioner as
well as the respondents are left expressly open and
reserved, including the liberty to invoke such statutory
remedies as may be available before the National
Company Law Tribunal by instituting appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
AMR

2026:KER:37218
O.P.(C) No.2308 of 2025
28
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 2308 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-1-2025
IN A.R NO.169/2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF CLAIM PETITION FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SOLE
ARBITRATOR K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI.
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE
ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE
ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21-7-
2025 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM
THE ARBITRATOR.
Exhibit -P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-9-2025
IN M.P. NO.1/2025 IN A.C.NO.3/2025
PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR.