Ajayakumar P.R. Olickal House vs M/S/Cholamandalam Investment … on 14 June, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12505 of 2005(L)


1. AJAYAKUMAR P.R. OLICKAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M/S/CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND
                       ...       Respondent

2. M./S.CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MANOJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :14/06/2007

 O R D E R
                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                   ..........................................................

                             W.P.(C)No.12505 OF 2005

                  ...........................................................

                       DATED THIS THE 14TH JUNE, 2007


                                    J U D G M E N T

Ext.P9 order passed by the learned Munsiff staying all further

proceedings in a suit for injunction filed by the petitioner-plaintiff

seeking to restrain forcible repossession of a vehicle on the ground

that he has paid off all the amounts which are due to the respondent-

company on account of the hire purchase transaction and referring

the parties to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 is under challenge in this Writ Petition under

Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Having considered the submissions and having gone through

the impugned order, I am of the view that there is no warrant at all for

interfering with the same in this Court’s visitorial jurisdiction. As

rightly noticed by the learned Munsiff, it is obligatory on the terms of

Section 8 of the Act that the judicial authority before whom action is

sought in a matter which is subject of an arbitration agreement shall

refer the parties to arbitration. The argument of the petitioner that

the suit being one simpliciter for injunction does not come within

Section 8 of the Act cannot receive acceptance, since admittedly there

WP(C)N0.12505/05

-2-

is a dispute between the parties as to whether the liabilities of the

petitioner under the hire purchase agreement containing arbitration

clause have been discharged. The learned Munsiff has rightly

referred to and followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums

[(2003) 6 SCC 503].

The challenge against the impugned order fails. The Writ Petition

is dismissed. No costs.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl

WP(C)N0.12505/05

-3-