Remanded

M/S.Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Baiju P.P.

Kerala HC16 Mar 2017CRP/617/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the lower court's order rejecting an application for referral to arbitration. The court held the lower court was wrong to meticulously analyze the arbitration clause and held the parties at liberty to apply to withdraw the suit or for appropriate orders due to subsequent events.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition disposed of. The order of the lower court is set aside. The parties are in liberty to apply before the lower court either to withdraw the suit or for passing necessary orders.

M/S.Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Baiju P.P. — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 617 of 2015 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.9.2015 IN I.A.NO.2346/2015 IN OS.NO.557/2015 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER: PETITIONER: DEFENDANT:

¶8

M/S.SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. 21, PATTULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY SRI.V.SURESH, BRANCH MANAGER, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD., PT USHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER

¶10

RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: PLAINTIFF:

¶11

BAIJU P.P. S/O.DAMODARAN, KARTHIKA HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU KARA, PANACHIKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶13

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.03.2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

I.A.NO.2920/2015 IN C.R.P.NO.617/2015

¶15

CLOSED

¶16

16/03/2017

¶17

SD/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

AHZ/

P. Somarajan, J.

C.R.P. No. 617 of 2015 (A)

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2017

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The challenge is against the order passed in I.A.No.2346 of 2015 in O.S.No.557 of 2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kottayam, by civil revision by the petitioner/defendant. The said application was filed for referring the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That application was rejected by the lower court by the impugned order dated 17.9.2015.

¶25

Heard Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

Along with the application in I.A.No.2346 of 2015 a notarized copy of the arbitration agreement was produced. The said application was filed not later than the submission of the first statement by the defendant. The lower court went wrong in

¶27

C.R.P. No. 617 of 2015 (A)

¶28

:: 2 ::

¶29

appreciating the details of the arbitration clause so as to find whether the said court has jurisdiction over the matter. It is not at all necessary for the lower court to go into each and every part of the arbitration clause or to conduct a meticulous analysis on the arbitration clause. When it prima facie satisfies that the arbitration clause is valid and has the effect of mutual consent of the parties to the contract the court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration on satisfying all other ingredients mandated under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The legal position is settled down by the Apex Court in Sundaram Finance Limited (M/s.) and Another v. T. Thankam (2015 KHC 4394 = AIR 2015 SC 1303) .

¶30

When the matter taken up for hearing today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that by the act of the parties arbitration proceedings were already initiated which has resulted in an arbitration award. So virtually the scope of the suit now stood as negatived. It is also submitted that they are intending to file an application before the lower court stating the subsequent events happened. Inter alia, it was contended by the counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant that the present application

¶31

C.R.P. No. 617 of 2015 (A)

¶32

:: 3 ::

¶33

became infructuous as the parties have agreed upon to initiate arbitration proceedings independently without a reference under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said submission is recorded.

¶34

The order of the lower court is hereby set aside. The parties are at liberty to apply before the lower court either to withdraw the suit or for passing necessary orders in view of the subsequent events happened. Without prejudice to the abovesaid right, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

P. Somarajan Judge

¶36

ahz/

M/S.Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Baiju P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Baiju P.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Vasudevan Nair

A.P.Velayudhan Vs Akbar Ali

Muhammedkutty Vs Ali

Shanmughasundaram Vs Kalavathy @ Kannamma

Suresh Vs Sreenarayana

Vilasini Vs Unni