9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for injunction filed by the respondent, the prayer made was to restrain the first and second defendant institutions and their men from illegally taking away from the possession of plaintiff or her employee, or interfering with the use and enjoyment of ambassador or causing damage to the car bearing registration number KL-11-AA-1473 in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff by way of a decree of injunction. The car was purchased on loan granted by the appellant. Duly complying with the procedure under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant filed an application bringing to the notice of the trial court that in view of the agreement for arbitration between the parties regarding resolution of the disputes, the court did not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Procedure. The above view is further supported by Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which says that "in the matters governed by first part of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the first part". It means that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not completely ousted by Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not bar the exercise of general power of the civil court to grant interim relief including specific injunctive relief under Order XXXIX of the CPC and the Specific Relif Act. ..." Aggrieved, the appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. None appeared for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of the Arbitration Act, moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before the first statement on the substance of the dispute is filed, in view of the peremptory language of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement, as held by this Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and others v. P.V.G. Raju (Dead) and others[(2000) 4 SCC 539]. The position was further explained in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums[(2003) 6 SCC 503]. To quote: "14. This Court in the case of P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju has held that the language of Section 8 is peremptory in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delaying and complicating the process. The said issue is also no more res integra. In Sukanya Holdings (P) Limited v. Jayesh Pandya and another[(2003) 5 SCC 531] at paragraphs-16 and 17, it was held as follows: "16. The next question which requires consideration is - even if there is no provision for partly referring the dispute to arbitration, whether such a course is possible under Section 8 of the Act. In our view, it would be difficult to give an interpretation to Section 8 under which bifurcation of the cause of action, that is to say, the subject-matter of the suit or in some cases bifurcation of the suit between parties who are parties to the arbitration agreement and others is possible. This would be laying down a totally new proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Once it is brought to the notice of the court that its jurisdiction has been taken away in terms of the procedure prescribed under a special statue, the civil court should first see whether there is ouster of jurisdiction in terms or compliance of the procedure under the special statute. The general law should yield to the special law - generalia specialibus non derogant. In such a situation, the approach shall not be to see whether there is still jurisdiction in the civil court under the general law. Such approaches would only delay the resolution of disputes and complicate the redressal of grievance and of course unnecessarily increase the pendency in the court. The order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the trial court and order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
