Civil Revision against a trial court order granting reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court held the agreement binding and dismissed the revision.
Civil Revision Petition stood dismissed; no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023 and
C.M.P.No.1792 of 2023
Mrs.Mumtaj Begum W/o.Saleem Khan B, Rep by her Power Agent Mr.Saleem Khan B, S/o.Basha Appointed by Special Power of Attorney dated 07.04.2022
Residing at: Old No.5, New No.16, Syed Wahab Hussain Street, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. ... Petitioner
Vs.
Rep.by its Branch Head, Having its office at: New No.70, Old No.27, S-4, 2nd Floor, North Mada Street, Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
Rep.by its Branch Head, Having its office at: Old No.11, New No.47, Sai Guru Kirpa,
Page 1 of 6
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
Door No.3A, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.
3.M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Zonal Head, Having its office at: No.14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.05 of 2022 in O.S.No.2834 of 2022 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and consequently restore the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.Yusuf S.Q
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.05 of 2022 in O.S.No.2834 of 2022 on the file of the XX Assistant City Civil Court at Chennai and consequently, restore the same.
permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.5 of 2022 under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator.
Page 2 of 6
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
“10. 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 [(2000) 4 SCC 539]”.
Page 3 of 6
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
fact that the revision petitioner admittedly signed the hypothecation-cumloan agreement and thus, the terms and conditions stipulated are binding on the parties. That apart, the trial court passed an order on 12.12.2022 and immediately, the revision petitioner preferred a revision before this Court. Thus, the said ground has no relevancy with reference to the time gap noticed. Since the Court passed an order, directing the parties to resolve the issues through Arbitration, the respondents shall appoint an Arbitrator and accordingly, adjudicate the disputes on merits and in accordance with law.
Page 4 of 6
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023 stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.02.2023
kak Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes
To The Judge, XX Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
Page 5 of 6
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kak
C.R.P.No.217 of 2023
03.02.2023
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the suit and referring the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act despite the petitioner's claim of no valid agreement.
Whether the hypothecation-cum-loan agreement is binding on the parties and warrants reference to arbitration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and others v. P.V.G.Raju (Dead) and othersApplied¶31
P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and others v. P.V.G.Raju (Dead) and others [(2000) 4 SCC 539] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mrs. Mumtaj Begum W/o. Saleem Khan B
M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
