M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus T. THANKAM

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 20-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 2 S.C.R. 228 
A 
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOTHER 
v. 
T THANKAM 
(Civil Appeal No. 2079 of 2015) 
FEBRUARY 20, 2015 
B 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
s. 8 -
Application under - Maintainability of - Pending suit for 
injunction, application uls. 8 seeking the direction of the 
C case to the arbitral tribunal on the ground that in view of 
the arbitration agreement, the suit was not maintainable -
Courts below rejected the plea - On appeal, held: If a party 
approaches a civil court ignoring the arbitration clause and 
another party moves the court for referring the matter for 
D arbitration, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties 
for arbitration - Trial Court directed to pass fresh orders 
on the application. 
Maxim -
'generalia specialibus non derogant' -
E Applicability of. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Once there is an agreement between the 
parties to refer the disputes or differences arising out of 
F 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 
G ofthe 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 
aHreement. [Para 10] [232-G-H; 233-A] 
H 
228 
MIS. SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED v. T. THAN KAM 
229 
2. Once an application in due compliance of A 
Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, the approach of 
the civil court should be not to see whether the court 
has jurisdiction. 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 B 
civil court should first see w~ether there is ouster of 
jurisdiction in terms or ce>mpliance of the procedure 
under the special statute. The general law should yield 
to the special law - generalia specialibus non derogant. 
The trial court is directed to pass fresh orders on the c 
application filed by the appellant-defendant u/s 8 of the 
Arbitration Act. [Paras 15 and 16] [235-C-D, F-G] 
P Anand Gajapathi Raju and Ors. v. P VG. Raju (Dead) 
and Ors. 2000 (2) SCR 684 = 2000 (4) SCC 539; Hindustan 
Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Pinkcity Midway D 
Petroleums2009 (14) SCR 815 = 2003 (6) SCC 503; Branch 
Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and Anr. v. 
Potluri Madhvilata and Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 103; Sukanya 
Holdings (P) Limited v. Jayesh Pandya and Anr. 2003 
(3) SCR 558 = (2003) 5 SCC 531 - relied on. 
E 
Orix Auto Finance (India) Limited v. Jagmander Singh 
and Anr. 2006 (2) SCR 169 = (2006) 2 SCC 598-referred 
to. 
Case Law Reference 
2000 (2) SCR 684 
relied on 
para 10 
2003 (6) sec 503 
relied on 
para 11 
2009 (14) SCR 815 
relied on 
para 12 
2003 (3) SCR 558 
relied on 
para 13 
2006 (2) SCR 169 
referred to 
para 14 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2079 of 2015 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2014 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition (C) No. 
21076of2010 
Dhruv Mehta, Balaji Srinivasan, J. Thilak, Mayank 
8 
Kshirsagar, Anupam Dhruve, Vaishnavi Subrahmanya, Srishti 
Govil, Vaishali DixitfortheAppellants. 
c 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. 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. 
3. 
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 
E 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. 
4. 
Duly complying with the procedure under Section 8 of 
F the Arbitration Act, the appellant filed an application bringing 
to the notice of the tria

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.