M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANR. Vs. T. THANKAM
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 2079 of 2015, Judgment Date: Feb 20, 2015
Once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of The Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act')
before the civil court, what should be the approach of the court, is the
short question arising for consideration in this case.
Once there is an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes or
differences arising out of the agreement to arbitration, and in case either
party, ignoring the terms of the agreement, approaches the civil court and
the other party, in terms of the Section 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[1].
Once an application in due compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the
court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has
been ousted. There is a lot of difference between the two approaches. 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
17.03.2014 passed by the High Court, are set aside.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2079 OF 2015
(Arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 20140/2014)
M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and another ... Appellant (s)
Versus
T. Thankam ... Respondent (s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.:
Leave granted.
Once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of The Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Arbitration Act')
before the civil court, what should be the approach of the court, is the
short question arising for consideration in this case.
In a suit 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 have jurisdiction
to try the case and the parties were to be directed to the process of
arbitration in terms of the agreement. The trial court, by order dated
21.06.2010, declined the relief holding that:
"... Even though clause 22 of the Ext.A1 agreement provides that of
disputes should be referred to arbitration this will not prevent the
plaintiff from approaching this court especially when one of the parties to
the agreement are trying to commit an act opposed to public policy and per
se illegal. The arbitration clause in the agreement cannot be put forward
as a shield when one of the parties to the agreement commit an act opposed
to public policy. In such circumstances the plaintiff can seek protection
under the common civil law. In this matter what the respondent alleged that
the petitioners are trying to take forcible possession of the vehicle which
is being run by her. Her relief sought for in the plaint is only against
the illegal acts of the defendants. The apprehended acts of the plaintiff
are against the public policy and per se illegal and hence this suit is
maintainable. ..."
The appellant pursued the matter before the High Court. By the impugned
order dated 17.03.2014, it was held as follows:
"... Going by Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, I am of
the opinion that mere inclusion of an arbitration clause in the agreement
does not bar or cause to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court provided
under Section 9 of the Code of 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
the respondent.
Two clauses of Annexure-P1-Loan Agreement between the parties, executed on
29.06.1997, are relevant for the consideration of the disputes. Clause 14.6
reads as follows:
"14.6. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement, the
Lender shall be entitled to reposess the hypothecated Asset, whether the
entire Loan Amount has been recalled or not, whenever, in the absolute
discretion of the Lender, there is likelihood of the dues of the Lender not
being paid by the borrower and or/the Asset is likely to be transferred by
the Borrower to defeat the security and or payment of the due any units of
the Lender."
Clause 22(a), as to the extent relevant, reads as follows:
"22. (a) All disputes, differences of any claim arising out of this
Agreement whether during its subsistence or thereafter shall be settled by
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof and shall be
referred to the sole Arbitration of an Arbitrator nominated by the Managing
Director/Joint Managing Director of the Lender. The award given by such an
Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the Borrower to the agreement."
Once there is an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes or
differences arising out of the agreement to arbitration, and in case either
party, ignoring the terms of the agreement, approaches the civil court and
the other party, in terms of the Section 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[1].
The position was further explained in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums[2]. 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 nature. Therefore, in
cases where there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, it is
obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of
their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided in the
original action after such an application is made except to refer the
dispute to an arbitrator. Therefore, it is clear that if, as contended by a
party in an agreement between the parties before the civil court, there is
a clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for the civil court to refer the
dispute to an arbitrator. In the instant case the existence [pic]of an
arbitral clause in the Agreement is accepted by both the parties as also by
the courts below but the applicability thereof is disputed by the
respondent and the said dispute is accepted by the courts below. Be that as
it may, at the cost of repetition, we may again state that the existence of
the arbitration clause is admitted. If that be so, in view of the mandatory
language of Section 8 of the Act, the courts below ought to have referred
the dispute to arbitration."
In Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another v. Potluri
Madhvilata and another[3], the position has been restated holding that no
option is left to the court, once the pre-requisite conditions of Section 8
are fully satisfied.
The attempt of the trial court and the approach made by the high court in
bifurcating the cause of action, is fallacious. It would only lead to
delaying and complicating the process. The said issue is also no more res
integra. In Sukanya Holdings (P) Limited v. Jayesh Pandya and another[4] 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 procedure not contemplated under the Act. If bifurcation of the
subject-matter of a suit was contemplated, the legislature would have used
appropriate language to permit such a course. Since there is no such
indication in the language, it follows that bifurcation of the subject-
matter of an action brought before a judicial authority is not allowed.
17. Secondly, such bifurcation of suit in two parts, one to be decided by
the Arbitral Tribunal and the other to be decided by the civil court would
inevitably delay the proceedings. The whole purpose of speedy disposal of
dispute and decreasing the cost of litigation would be frustrated by such
procedure. It would also increase the cost of litigation and harassment to
the parties and on occasions there is possibility of conflicting judgments
and orders by two different forums."
In Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Jagmander Singh and another[5],
referring to public policy, this Court has taken the view that if
agreements permit the financer to take possession of the finances vehicles,
there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken, unless the
contract is held to be unconscionable or opposed to public policy".
Once an application in due compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the
court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has
been ousted. There is a lot of difference between the two approaches. 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
17.03.2014 passed by the High Court, are set aside. The trial court is
directed to pass fresh orders on the application filed by the appellant-
defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The needful shall be done
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.
..........................J.
(M.Y. EQBAL)
..........................J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi;
February 20, 2015.
ITEM NO.1B COURT NO.11 SECTION XIA
[for judgment]
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
C.A. No. 2079 of 2015 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).
20140/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/03/2014 in WP
No. 21076/2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam)
M/S SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
T. THANKAM Respondent(s)
Date : 20/02/2015 This appeal was called on for judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph pronounced the judgment of
the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Y. Eqbal and His Lordship.
Leave granted.
Appeal is disposed of in terms of signed reportable judgment.
No costs.
(INDU POKHRIYAL) (PARDEEP KUMAR)
COURT MASTER AR-cum-PS
[SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE]
-----------------------
[1] (2000) 4 SCC 539
[2] (2003) 6 SCC 503
[3] (2009) 10 SCC 103
[4] (2003) 5 SCC 531
[5] (2006) 2 SCC 598
-----------------------
REPORTABLE
-----------------------
7
For the Latest Updates
Join Now