Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 865 - SC - Indian LawsArbitration clause in the agreement - Matter refer to trial court & High court - Peremptory Section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - General law should yield to the special law - Generalia specialibus non derogant - Held that:- 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. Already decided in case of Sukanya Holdings (P) Limited. [2003 (4) TMI 435 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. 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 [2006 (2) TMI 625 - SUPREME COURT] 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. Decided in favour of appellant.
|