{"id":28325,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-12T17:55:51","modified_gmt":"2015-03-12T12:25:51","slug":"sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1496 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nSumitomo Corporation\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nTarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1496 \tOF 2008
\n(Arising out of SLP (C) No.8228 OF 2007)<\/p>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order
\ndated 21.02.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in F.A.O.
\nNo. 305 of 2006 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal
\nfiled by the appellant herein for lack of territorial jurisdiction
\nholding that Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956 will
\ntake precedence over Section 50 of the Arbitration and
\nConciliation Act, 1996.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tBrief facts, in a nutshell, are:\n<\/p>\n
On 05.10.1984, a Joint Venture Agreement was entered into
\nbetween Sumitomo Corporation (appellant herein),  Punjab
\nTractors Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.5 herein) and Swaraj Mazda
\nLimited (Respondent No.6 herein)  comprehensively specifying
\nthe respective rights and obligations of the parties including
\nthe management control of the affairs of the company. The
\nJoint Venture Agreement, which is filed as Annexure P-1,
\ncontains in Article XVI, arbitration agreement between the
\nparties.\n<\/p>\n
In the beginning of 2005, the shareholding pattern of the
\nappellant – Sumitomo Corporation ( in short “SC”) and
\nrespondent No. 5 – Punjab Tractors Pvt. Ltd. ( in short “PTL”)
\n& respondent No. 6 – Swaraj Mazda Ltd. (in short “SML”) was :
\nrespondent No.5  PTL – 29.04%, respondent No.6  SML
\n15.66%, appellant  SC  10.44% and respondent No.1 – CDC
\nFinancial Services (Mauritius) Ltd., respondent No.2 – South
\nAsia Regional Fund, Mauritius, respondent No.3 – CDC-PTL
\nHoldings Ltd. and respondent No.4 – ACTIS Agri Business Ltd.
\n 17.45%.  On 30.06.2005, an agreement (Annexure P-2) was
\nentered into between PTL, SC and SML for purchase by the
\nSC, appellant herein, of 1,573,000 shares of SML from PTL.
\nThus, the shareholding of SC increased to 41% while the
\nholding of PTL came down to 14%.  The said agreement also
\ncontains arbitration agreement in Article II, Section 2.03.
\n\tIn May-June, 2006, disputes arose between the parties
\nregarding rights of the parties envisaged in Section 4.1 and
\nother provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement.  PTL sought
\nto nominate four Directors on the Board of SML and the same
\nwas disallowed in view of Section 4.1 of the Joint Venture
\nAgreement.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 3.8.2006, PTL and 4 others i.e. Respondent Nos. 1to
\n5 herein filed Company Petition No. 68 of 2006 before the
\nCompany Law Board, Principal Bench, New Delhi seeking
\nredressal under Sections 397,398,402 etc. of the Companies
\nAct, 1956 (for short the “Companies Act”) for oppression and
\nmismanagement on the part of the appellant and nominee
\ndirectors of the appellant in the management and conduct of
\nthe affairs of Swaraj Mazda Ltd., the company in issue
\n(Respondent No.6 herein). In the company petition, the
\nappellant herein i.e. S.C. filed an application being C.A. No.
\n259 of 2006 seeking reference to arbitration under Section 45
\nand alternatively under Section 8 of the Arbitration &
\nConciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the
\n“Arbitration Act”).  On 26.9.2006, the Company Law Board
\npassed an order refusing to refer the parties to arbitration
\nunder Section 45 of the Act. Against the said order, the
\nappellant filed an appeal being F.A.O. No. 305 of 2006 under
\nSection 50 of the Act on 30.10.2006 in the High Court of
\nDelhi.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 21.2.2007, the High Court delivered the judgment
\ndismissing the appeal not on merits but for lack of territorial
\njurisdiction holding that Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act
\nwill take precedence over Section 50 of the Arbitration Act.
\nAggrieved by the said order, the appellant  SC filed this
\nappeal before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tWe heard Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellant and Mr. Sudipto Sarkar and Mr.
\nJaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
\ncontesting respondents.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tAccording to Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel
\nfor the appellant, the High Court whilst noticing that it was
\nthe forum under Section 50 of the Arbitration Act has
\ncommitted an error in holding that the forum of appeal was
\nnot the forum contemplated under Section 50 of the said Act
\nand the appeal was liable to be filed in forum contemplated
\nunder Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act.  He further
\nsubmitted that in view of the fact that the appellant herein
\nfiled an application under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act
\nthough in a petition filed under Sections 397, 398, 402 etc. of
\nthe Companies Act for oppression and mis-management, in
\nthe light of the language used, namely, “judicial authority”
\nunder Section 45 of the Arbitration Act, the order dated
\n26.09.2006 having been passed by the Company Law Board
\n(for short the “CLB”) in its capacity as a judicial authority
\nunder the Arbitration Act, the appeal against the order lies
\nunder the Arbitration Act.  He also submitted that the source
\nof jurisdiction of the CLB exercising powers in passing the
\norder impugned in the High Court is Section 45 of the
\nArbitration Act and not any provision of the Companies Act.
\nAccording to him, the Arbitration Act has been held to be a
\ncomplete code as regards the law of arbitration and the same
\nbeing a special statute has overriding effect than the
\nCompanies Act in the light of the language used in Section 50
\nof the Arbitration Act.  The Delhi High Court is the appropriate
\nCourt authorized by law to hear appeals; hence the contrary
\nconclusion cannot be sustained and liable to be interfered.  On
\nthe other hand, Mr. Sudipto Sarkar and Mr. Jaideep Gupta,
\nlearned senior counsel for the contesting respondents
\nsubmitted that Section 50 of the Arbitration Act clearly
\nsuggests that an appeal shall lie from the order of the CLB to
\nthe Court authorized by law to hear the appeal from such
\norder of the CLB.  In other words, according to them, in the
\nevent the order under Section 45 is passed by the CLB, the
\nforum which is provided under law for hearing the appeal from
\nthe orders of the CLB, will be the Appellate Forum.  They
\nelaborated that Section 10-F read with Section 10(1)(a) of the
\nCompanies Act, provides for such forum to hear the appeal
\nfrom the orders of the CLB as the High Court within the
\njurisdiction of which the Registered Office of the company in
\nissue is situated.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tWe have carefully perused all the relevant materials,
\nAnnexures and considered the rival contentions. The only
\nquestion to be considered in the present appeal is whether the
\norder dated 26.09.2006 of the CLB refusing to refer parties to
\narbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act was liable
\nto be challenged to the forum under Section 50 of the
\nArbitration Act or to the forum under Section 10(1)(a) of the
\nCompanies Act.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tIt is relevant to point out that in a company petition filed
\nby the PTL and 4 others (Respondent Nos.1-5 herein) before
\nthe CLB, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the second respondent
\ntherein (appellant herein, namely, SC) filed Company
\nApplication No. 259 of 2006 under Section 45 of the
\nArbitration Act for referring the parties to arbitration.  The
\nsaid Section 45 reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
“45.  Power of judicial authority to refer parties to
\narbitration.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Part I
\nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), a judicial
\nauthority, when seized of an action in a matter in respect of
\nwhich the parties have made an agreement referred to in
\nsection 44, shall, at the request of one of the parties or any
\nperson claiming through or under him, refer the parties to
\narbitration, unless it finds that the said agreement is null
\nand void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.”
\nBy pointing out the provisions of the Joint Venture Agreement
\n(in short “JVA”), it was contended on behalf of the appellant
\nthat the dispute having directly arisen from the terms of the
\narbitration agreement, the same has to be necessarily
\ndetermined only by the arbitral tribunal, hence the CLB is
\nbound to refer the parties to arbitration.  It is not in dispute
\nthat as held by this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
\nLtd. vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums,<\/a> (2003) 6 SCC 503, if
\nthere is an arbitration clause, in terms of Section 8, the Court
\nhas a mandatory duty to refer the disputes arising between
\nthe contracting parties to arbitrator.  It is also not in dispute
\nthat in Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A.,<\/a> (2002) 4
\nSCC 105, it has been held that Part 1 of the Act applies to
\ninternational arbitration held outside India also.  On the other
\nhand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the
\nappellant invoked the provisions of the Arbitration Act on the
\nground that both JVA and Share Purchase Agreement (in
\nshort “SPA”) provide for arbitration, in the JVA arbitration has
\nbeen provided only in case of disputes between the company
\n(SVL\/PTL on the one hand and Mazda\/SC on the other), there
\nis no provision for an arbitration in case of disputes between
\nthe company and the contesting respondents.  It was also
\npointed out that in the two agreements, namely, JVA and SPA
\nthree arbitral tribunals have been named, hence in the light of
\nthe uncertainty regarding the contractual forum to which the
\nparties are to be referred, the application cannot be
\nentertained.  It was also highlighted since some of the
\nrespondents herein were not being parties to the JVA, they
\ncannot be referred to arbitration.  It was also pointed out that
\nthe main grievance is that the company is not complying with
\nthe provisions of Article 87, therefore, the actual dispute is
\nbetween the company and the respondents, even though the
\ncompany is a party to the JVA, the arbitration clause does not
\ncover the company, in such an event, the question of referring
\nthe parties to arbitration does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tIn the company application filed by the appellant herein,
\nthe main allegation relates to the claim, namely, the PTL has
\nthe right to nominate four directors and it is based on not only
\nclause 4(1) of JVA but also on article 87 of AOA.  We have
\nalready referred to the fact that the said application had been
\nfiled under Section 45 of the Arbitration Act.  Section 2(h) of
\nthe Arbitration Act mentions that the “party” means a party to
\nan arbitration agreement.  To put it clear the party to the
\njudicial proceeding should be a party to the arbitration
\nagreement.  As rightly observed by the CLB, the proceeding
\nunder Section 397\/398 of the Companies Act always relates to
\nthe affairs of the company.  Insofar as the arbitration clause in
\nthe JVA is concerned, to bind the company it has to be a party
\nto the arbitration agreement.  It was pointed out that even
\nthough the company is a party to the JVA, no arbitration has
\nbeen provided for disputes between the shareholders and the
\ncompany or in relation to allegations in the affairs of the
\ncompany.  A perusal of the agreement show that the
\narbitration clause contained in JVA has provided for
\nresolution of disputes through arbitration classifying the
\ncompany and\/or PTL as one party and Mazda or SC as
\nanother party.  In other words, no arbitration has been
\nenvisaged in the JVA if dispute arises even with reference to
\nthe terms of the JVA between PTL on the one hand and the
\ncompany on the other.  It is relevant to mention that the
\nprovisions of Section 397\/398 of the Companies Act can be
\ninvoked only if the disputes, even among the shareholders or
\nallegations against each other, relate to the affairs of a
\ncompany. In the company petition, the composition of the
\nboard of directors is in the affairs of the company and the
\ncontesting respondents herein have alleged that the company
\nis not complying with the provisions of article 87 in the matter
\nof composition of the board.  The CLB, on analyzing those
\nrelevant aspects, concluded that the grievances of the
\npetitioners therein (contesting respondents) falls squarely in
\nthe affairs of the company and since no arbitration has been
\nprovided in regard to the disputes between PTL and the
\ncompany, there is no arbitration agreement at all between the
\ncompany and PTL in the JVA to refer the parties to arbitration.
\nThe CLB has also concluded that petitioner Nos. 2-5 therein
\nare not parties to either of the two agreements.  Based on the
\nabove factual aspects, the CLB has concluded that there is no
\ncommonalities of parties and considering all the relevant
\naspects arrived at a conclusion that the application deserves
\nto be dismissed on the main ground that the company in the
\naffairs of which application has been filed, is not a party to the
\narbitration agreement in the JVA and petitioner Nos. 2 to 5
\ntherein were not parties to the JVA or SPA could also
\nindependently prosecute the said petition as they satisfy the
\nrequirements of Section 399 and finally, the arbitral forum is
\nnot specific.\n<\/p>\n
9)\tIn the light of the said conclusion, in order to ascertain
\nthe correctness of the same, it is useful to refer to the
\nprovisions of Section 50 of the Arbitration Act and Section
\n10(1)(a) and Section 10-F and of the Companies Act.
\n“50. Appealable orders.- (1) An appeal shall lie from the
\norder refusing to-\n<\/p>\n
(a) refer the parties to arbitration under section 45;\n<\/p>\n
(b) enforce a foreign award under section 48,
\nto the court authorized by law to hear appeals from such
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
(2) xxx xxxx”\n<\/p>\n
“10.  Jurisdiction of Courts.- (1) The Court having
\njurisdiction under this Act shall be-\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tthe High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the
\nplace at which the registered office of the company
\nconcerned is situate, except to the extent to which
\njurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court
\nor District Courts subordinate to that High Court in
\npursuance of sub-section (2); and\n<\/p>\n
(b)\twhere jurisdiction has been so conferred, the District
\nCourt in regard to matters falling within the scope of
\nthe jurisdiction conferred, in respect of companies
\nhaving their registered offices in the district.”
\n“10F. Appeals against the order of the Company Law
\nBoard.- Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the
\nCompany Law Board made before the commencement of the
\nCompanies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 may file an
\nappeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of
\ncommunication of the decision or order of the Company Law
\nBoard to him on any question of law arising out of such
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that
\nthe appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing
\nthe appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a
\nfurther period not exceeding sixty days.”\n<\/p>\n
The above provisions make it clear that the forum shall be
\ncourt authorized by law to hear the appeals from such order.
\nIn this regard, it is useful to reproduce the Explanation to
\nSection 47 of the Arbitration Act which reads thus:
\n\t“47. Evidence.- xxx xxxx
\nExplanation.- In this section and all the following sections of
\nthis Chapter, “Court” means the principal Civil Court of
\noriginal jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High
\nCourt in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction,
\nhaving jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the award if
\nthe same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not
\ninclude any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal
\nCivil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.”\n<\/p>\n
As rightly pointed out, it is clear that unlike the explanation to
\nSection 47, Section 50 uses the expression “Court” not
\nsimpliciter but qualified by the wording “authorized by law to
\nhear appeals from such order.”  It is not the court having
\njurisdiction if the subject-matter is a suit where jurisdiction is
\ndetermined in accordance with the provisions of Sections
\n16-20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  On the other hand,
\nSection 50 of the Arbitration Act specifically used the word
\n“authorized by law” and not the “Civil Procedure Code” or
\n“suit”.\n<\/p>\n
In Smt. Ganga Bai vs. Vijay Kumar and Others,<\/a> (1974)
\n2 SCC 393, while considering relevant provisions from the
\nCivil Procedure Code in respect of right of appeal against a
\nfinding, res judicata etc., this Court in para 15 held thus:
\n“15. It is thus clear that the appeal filed by Defendants 2 and 3 in
\nthe High Court was directed originally not against any part of the
\npreliminary decree but against a mere finding recorded by the trial
\ncourt that the partition was not genuine. The main controversy
\nbefore us centres round the question whether that appeal was
\nmaintainable. On this question the position seems to us well
\nestablished. There is a basic distinction between the right of suit
\nand the right of appeal. There is an inherent right in every person
\nto bring a suit of a civil nature and unless the suit is barred by
\nstatute one may, at one’s peril, bring a suit of one’s choice. It is no
\nanswer to a suit, howsoever frivolous to claim, that the law confers
\nno such right to sue. A suit for its maintainability requires no
\nauthority of law and it is enough that no statute bars the suit. But
\nthe position in regard to appeals is quite the opposite. The right of
\nappeal inheres in no one and therefore an appeal for its
\nmaintainability must have the clear authority of law. That explains
\nwhy the right of appeal is described as a creature of statute.”
\nIt is clear that if there is no bar in any statute, no difficulty in
\nfiling a suit, on the other hand in the case of appeals for its
\nmaintainability there must be a specific provision\/clear
\nauthority of law. In view of the same, while exercise of original
\njurisdiction as provided in Section 47 and other similar
\nsections of the Arbitration Act should be by the court within
\nthe jurisdiction of which the suit would have been filed, the
\nappeal shall always be to the appellate forum which hears
\nappeals from the order of the forum which passes the order.  It
\nis also clear from Section 37 of the Act dealing with appeals.
\nHere also the appeal is to the court which hears the appeal
\nand not the court which exercises original jurisdiction if the
\nsubject-matter had been a suit as provided in the explanation
\nto Section 47 or Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act.  To our
\nmind, the reading of Section 50 clearly suggests that an
\nappeal shall lie from the order of the CLB to the court
\nauthorized by law to hear the appeals from such order of the
\nCLB.  To make it clear that in the event the order under
\nSection 45 is passed by the CLB, the forum which is provided
\nunder law for hearing the appeal from the order of the CLB,
\nwill be the Appellate Forum.  In other words, while Section 50
\nof the Arbitration Act provides for the orders which can be
\nmade the subject-matter of the appeal, the forum to hear the
\nappeal is to be tested with reference to the appropriate law
\ngoverning the authority or forum which passed the original
\norder, that is, in the case on hand, the CLB.  Section 10F read
\nwith Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act provides for such
\nforum to hear the appeal from the orders of the CLB as the
\nHigh Court within the jurisdiction of which the Registered
\nOffice of the company in issue is situated.\n<\/p>\n
10)\tNow let us look into Section 10(1)(a) and Section 10F of
\nthe Companies Act.  An appeal against any order of the CLB
\nincluding an order passed refusing reference to arbitration
\nshall lie to the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the
\nRegistered Office of the company is situated.  That is the
\nreason Section 50 of the Arbitration Act purposively uses the
\nexpression “authorized by law to hear the appeal”.  As rightly
\npointed out, it cannot be that an order passed by the CLB
\nbecomes appealable to a civil court or a court exercising civil
\njurisdiction when Parliament has chosen to provide for a
\nspecific appellate forum which should hear the appeal from
\nthe orders of the CLB.\n<\/p>\n
11)\tIn Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. and Others vs.
\nBhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., and Others,<\/a>
\n(1994) 1 SCC 34, the main question for decision relates to the
\nmeaning of the expression “the High Court” in Section 10F of
\nthe Companies Act, 1956 which has been inserted in the
\nprincipal Act by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988 w.e.f.
\nMay 31, 1991.  The controversy is whether the High Court to
\nwhich the appeal lies under Section 10F from an order of the
\nCLB is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the
\nplace at which the registered office of the Company is situate
\nor it is the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the
\nplace at which the Company Law Board makes the order
\nunder appeal.  The Court has concluded as under:-
\n“18. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the
\nexpression “the High Court” in Section 10-F of the Companies Act
\nmeans the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place
\nat which the registered office of the company concerned is situate
\nas indicated by Section 2(11) read with Section 10(1)(a) of the Act.
\nAccordingly, in the present case, the appeal against the order of
\nthe Company Law Board would lie in the Madras High Court
\nwhich has jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the
\nregistered office of the company concerned is situate and not the
\nDelhi High Court merely because the order was made by the
\nCompany Law Board at Delhi. This appeal is allowed and the
\nimpugned order made by the Delhi High Court is set aside
\nresulting in acceptance of the preliminary objection raised by the
\nappellants in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court will now
\nmake the consequential order.”\n<\/p>\n
As per the ratio decidendi, the appeal under Section 50 of the
\nArbitration Act from an order passed by the CLB on matters
\nconcerning Swaraj Mazda whose Registered Office is in Punjab
\nis maintainable in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and
\nnot to the High Court of Delhi.  Reliance placed by the
\nappellant on the decision of the High Court of Punjab and
\nHaryana in Hind Samachar Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Smt.
\nSudarshan Chopra and Others, (2002) 4 Comp LJ 1 to
\ncontend that an appeal from an order passed by the CLB
\nsitting in Delhi should be to the Delhi High Court
\nnotwithstanding the Registered Office of the company
\nconcerned is in Punjab is not sustainable.  A perusal of the
\nsaid decision shows that the Punjab and Haryana High Court
\nwas not considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction on
\nmatters arising out of an order passed by the CLB.  On the
\nother hand, the High Court was considering the issue whether
\nan appeal is maintainable from an order passed by the CLB
\nrejecting the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act
\nwhen Section 37 of the said Act expressly provides that no
\nappeal shall lie against orders specifically mentioned in
\nSection 37 and from no others and Section 8 is not mentioned
\nin that section.  As rightly pointed out by learned senior
\ncounsel appearing for the contesting respondents in that case
\nthe Punjab and Haryana High Court did not consider the issue
\nthat when an appeal lies which Court will have jurisdiction to
\nentertain and decide the appeal.  This is clear from the reading
\nof paras 17 and 18 of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
\nHigh Court.  It is also brought to our notice that in
\nSudarshan Chopra vs. Company Law Board, 2004 (2) Arb
\nLR 241 referring to various authorities, the very same Punjab
\nand Haryana High Court has ruled that the jurisdiction of the
\nCompany Law Board under Sections 397 and 398 is not in any
\nway affected by the existence of arbitration clause and,
\ntherefore, the CLB which exercises power under those Sections
\nand passes orders as per the provisions of Section 402 of the
\nCompanies Act can proceed with the matter notwithstanding
\nthe arbitration clause.\n<\/p>\n
12)\tIn view of our conclusion, we are satisfied that the
\nappellant has wrongly based its arguments on matters such as
\nouster of jurisdiction, over-riding effect of special statute over
\ngeneral statute, over-riding effect of subsequent statute etc.
\nSince they have no application whatsoever to the matter in
\nissue, there is no need to refer various decisions in those
\naspects.  Ouster of jurisdiction arises only in regard to original
\njurisdiction and it cannot have any application to appellate
\njurisdiction as the one provided in Section 50 of the
\nArbitration Act.  The appeal is a statutory remedy and it can
\nlie only to the specified forum.  The appellate forum cannot be
\ndecided on the basis of cause of action as applicable to original
\nproceedings such as suit which could be filed in any court
\nwhere part of cause of action arises.  In such circumstances,
\nwe are unable to accept the lengthy arguments advanced on
\nthe above-mentioned subject by learned senior counsel for the
\nappellant.  Likewise, the submission of the appellant, namely,
\nthe Arbitration Act being a special and subsequent statute has
\nno relevance to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
13)\tIn the light of what has been stated above, we sustain the
\nimpugned order of the High Court dated 21.02.2007 in F.A.O.
\nNo. 305 of 2006.  Consequently, the appeal fails as devoid of
\nany merit and the same is dismissed.  It is made clear that the
\ntime taken by the appellant in pursuing their appeal before the
\nDelhi High Court as well as this Court shall be excluded for
\nthe purpose of limitation.  No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: Tarun Chatterjee, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1496 of 2008 PETITIONER: Sumitomo Corporation RESPONDENT: CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/2008 BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & P. Sathasivam JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT CIVIL APPEAL […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4173,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":4173,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008","name":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services ... on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-12T12:25:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sumitomo-corporation-vs-cdc-financial-services-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sumitomo Corporation vs Cdc Financial Services … on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}