National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. vs Adnan Samoon Rassiawala & 6 Ors. on 18 March, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 10/12/2015 in Complaint No. 541/2015 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS & RESORTS INDIA LTD. 17, 18, 2ND FLOOR, MAHINDRA TOWERS, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI-400054 TAMIL NADU ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ADNAN SAMOON RASSIAWALA & 6 ORS. 111/112, FABRICON INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, B.M. BHARGAVA ROAD, SHASTRI NAGAR, SANTA CRUZ (W) MUMBAI-400054 MAHARASHTRA 2. MR. SUBHASH SHIRKE, CM EMP NO. 009701 17, 18, 2ND FLOOR, MAHINDRA TOWERS, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI-600002 TAMIL NADU 3. MR. ARUN KUMAR NANDA CHAIRMAN, 3, ST HELEN'S COMMISSION, DR. GOPAL RAO DESHMUKH, RDMARG, MUMBAI-400026 MAHARASHTRA 4. MR. KAVINDER SINGH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAHINDRA TOWERS, MEDIA CUBE, G.M. BHOSALE MARG, WORLI MUMBAI-400018 MAHARASHTRA 5. CYRUS JAMSHED GUZDER, DIRECTOR, D-11, SEA FACE PARK, 50, BHULABAHI DESAI ROAD, MUMBAI-400026 MAHARASHTRA 6. VINEET NAYYAR, DIRECTOR, 5-A, FRIENDS COLONY (W), MATHURA ROAD, NEW DLEHI-110065 7. ROHIT KHATTAR, DIRECTOR, 60/2, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI-110060 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ayush Agarwala, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 Mar 2016 ORDER The short question for consideration in this Appeal is as to whether the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") was justified in dismissing the application filed by the Appellant, the Opposite Party in the Complaint, under Section-8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking stay of the proceedings in the Complaint and for referring the matter to arbitration, in view of the fact that there was an Arbitration Agreement between the parties.
Though Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Counsel, has made valiant attempt to convince us that in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh Bakshi, 2013 (134) DRJ 566 (FB), the parties were bound by the Arbitration Agreement and in view of the clear provision of Section-8 of the said Act, the dispute, subject matter of the Complaint, ought to have been referred to arbitration, yet we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Senior Counsel. The issue sought to be raised is no more res integra as stands concluded by a number of authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (see Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) through LRs & Ors., (2004) 1 SCC 305; Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294; and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Madusudan Reddy, (2012) 2 SCC 506).
In light of the said decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directly on the point, decision of the High Court cannot be relied upon, particularly when none of the afore-noted decisions have been noticed in the High Court's decision, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned order, warranting our interference.
Consequently, the Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER