Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. &amp; Others
and direct that if the mortgagor pays into court, the amount so found due, on or before such date as the court may fix (within six months from the date on which the court confirms the account taken or from the date on which the court declares the amount due), the petitioner shall deliver the documents and if necessary re-transfer the property to the defendant; and further direct that if the mortgagor defaults in payment of such dues, then the mortgagee will be entitled to final decree for sale of the property or part thereof and pay into court the sale proceeds, and to adjudge the subsequent costs, charges, expenses and interest and direct that the balance be paid to mortgagor/defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same. An arbitral tribunal will not be able to do so. (iv) Where in a suit for sale (or in a suit for foreclosure in which sale is ordered), subsequent mortgagees or persons deriving title from, or subrogated to the rights of any such mortgagees are joined as parties, the court while making the preliminary decree for sale under Rule 4(1), could provide for adjudication of the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit in a manner and form set forth in Form Nos. 9, 10, and 11 of appendix `D to the Code with such variations as the circumstances of the case may require. In a suit for foreclosure in the case of an anomalous mortgage, if the plaintiff succeeds, the court may, at the instance of any party to the suit or any other party interested in the mortgage security or the right of redemption, pass a like decree in lieu of a decree for foreclosure, on such terms as it thinks fit. But an arbitral tribunal will not be able to do. (v) The court has the power under Rule 4(2), on good cause being shown and upon terms to be fixed by it, from time to time, at any time before a final decree is passed, extend the time fixed for payment of the amount found or declared due or the amount adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, changes, expenses and interest, upon such terms as it deems fit. The Arbitral Tribunal will have no such power. 28. A decree for sale of a mortgaged property as in the case of a decree for order of winding up, requires the court to protect the interests of persons other than the parties to the suit/petition and empowers the court to entertain and adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of third parties (other than those who are parties to the arbitration agreement). Therefore, a suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgaged property, should only be tried by a public forum, and not by an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, it follows that the court where the mortgage suit is pending, should not refer the parties to arbitration. 29. The appellant contended that the suit ultimately raises the following core issues, which can be decided by a private forum: (i) Whether there is a valid mortgage or charge in favour of SBI? (ii) What is the amount due to SBI? and (iii) Whether SBI could seek eviction of appellant from the flat, even if it is entitled to enforce the mortgage/charge? It was submitted that merely because mortgage suits involve passing of preliminary decrees and final decrees, they do not get excluded from arbitrable disputes. It is pointed out that the arbitral tribunals can also make interim awards deciding certain aspects of the disputes finally which can be equated to preliminary decrees granted by courts, and the final award made by the arbitrator, after detailed accounting etc. could be compared to the final decree by courts. It is therefore contended that there is no impediment for the parties to mortgage suits being referred to arbitration under section 8 of the Act. If the three issues referred by the appellant are the only disputes, it may be possible to refer them to arbitration. But a mortgage suit is not only about determination of the existence of the mortgage or determination of the amount due. It is about enforcement of the mortgage with reference to an immovable property and adjudicating upon the rights and obligations of several classes of persons (referred to in para 27 (ii) above), who have the right to participate in the proceedings relating to the enforcement of the mortgage, vis-à-vis the mortgagor and mortgagee. Even if some of the issues or questions in a mortgage suit (as pointed out by the appellant) are arbitrable or could be decided by a private forum, the issues in a mortgage suit cannot be divided. The following observations of this court in a somewhat different context, in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H.Pandya - 2003 (5) SCC 531 are relevant: "The next question which requires consideration is--even if there is no provision for partly referring the dispute to arbitration, whether such a course is possible under Section 8 of the Act? In our view, it would be difficult to give an interpretation to Section 8 under which bifurcation of the cause of action that is to say the subject matter of the suit or in some cases bifurcation of the suit between parties who are parties to the arbitration agreement and others is possible. This would be laying down a totally new procedure not contemplated under the Act. If bifurcation of the subject matter of a suit was contemplated, the legislature would have used appropriate language to permit such a course. Since there is no such indication in the language, it follows that bifurcation of the subject matter of an action brought before a judicial authority is not allowed." Conclusion 30. Having regard to our finding on question (iv) it has to be held that the suit being one for enforcement of a mortgage by sale, it should be tried by the court and not by an arbitral tribunal.
0[ds]14. In this case, there is no dispute that all the parties to the suit are parties to an agreement which contains the provision for settlement of disputes by arbitration. Clause (16) which provides for arbitration provides for settlement of the following disputes by arbitration : (a) disputes with respect to creation of charge over the shares and flats; (b) disputes with respect to enforcement of the charge over the shares and flats and realization of sale proceeds therefrom; (c) application of the sale proceeds towards discharge of liability of Capstone and RV Appliances to the appellant; and (e) disputes relating to exercise of right of the appellant to continue to occupy the flats until the entire dues as stated in clauses 9 and 10 of the deposit agreement are realised by the appellant.15. The suit has been filed by SBI to enforce the mortgage to recover the amounts due to it. In that context, SBI has also sought delivery of vacant possession. The enforcement of the charge/mortgage over the flat, realisation of sale proceeds therefrom and the right of the appellant to stay in possession till the entire deposit is repaid, are all matters which are specifically mentioned in clause 16 as matters to be settled by arbitration. Therefore, the subject matter of the suit falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement.The appellant filed a detailed affidavit opposing the application for interim injunction on 15.12.1999. Thereafter the appellant filed the application under section 8 of the Act on 12.10.2001. On the date of filing of the application under section 8, the appellant had not filed the written statement. Section 8 of the Act provides that a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration. The High Court has held that filing a detailed counter affidavit by a defendant setting out its case, in reply to an application for temporary injunction, should be considered to be the submission of the first statement on the substance of the dispute; and that the application under section 8 of the Act having been filed subsequent to filing of such first statement on the substance of the dispute, the appellants prayer for referring the parties to arbitration cannot be accepted. The question therefore is whether filing a counter to an application for temporary injunction can be considered as submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute.17. Not only filing of the written statement in a suit, but filing of any statement, application, affidavit filed by a defendant prior to the filing of the written statement will be construed as `submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute, if by filing such statement/application/affidavit, the defendant shows his intention to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court and waive his right to seek reference to arbitration. But filing of a reply by a defendant, to an application for temporary injunction/attachment before judgment/appointment of Receiver, cannot be considered as submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute, as that is done to avoid an interim order being made against him. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs. Verma Transport Company - 2006 (7) SCC 275 , this Court held that the expression first statement on the substance of the dispute contained in Section 8(1) of the Act is different from the expression written statement, and refers to a submission of the party making the application under section 8 of the Act, to the jurisdiction of the judicial authority; and what should be decided by the court is whether the party seeking reference to arbitration has waived his right to invoke the arbitration clause. This Court then proceeded to consider whether contesting an application for temporary injunction by filing a counter, would amount to subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.In this case, the counter affidavit dated 15.12.1999, filed by the appellant in reply to the notice of motion (seeking appointment of a receiver and grant of a temporary injunction) clearly stated that the reply affidavit was being filed for the limited purpose of opposing the interim relief. Even in the absence of such a disclaimer, filing a detailed objection to an application for interim relief cannot be considered to be submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute resulting in submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.Though section 8 does not prescribe any time limit for filing an application under that section, and only states that the application under section 8 of the Act should be filed before submission of the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the scheme of the Act and the provisions of the section clearly indicate that the application thereunder should be made at the earliest. Obviously, a party who willingly participates in the proceedings in the suit and subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court cannot subsequently turn round and say that the parties should be referred to arbitration in view of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Whether a party has waived his right to seek arbitration and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court, depends upon the conduct of such party in the suit. When plaintiffs file applications for interim relief like appointment of a receiver or grant of a temporary injunction, the defendants have to contest the application. Such contest may even lead to appeals and revisions where there may be even stay of further proceedings in the suit. If supplemental proceedings like applications for temporary injunction on appointment of Receiver, have been pending for a considerable time and a defendant has been contesting such supplemental proceedings, it cannot be said that the defendant has lost the right to seek reference to arbitration. At the relevant time, the unamended Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code was governing the filing of written statements and the said rule did not prescribe any time limit for filing written statement. In such a situation, mere passage of time between the date of entering appearance and date of filing the application under section 8 of the Act, can not lead to an inference that a defendant subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court for adjudication of the main dispute. The facts in this case show that the plaintiff in the suit had filed an application for temporary injunction and appointment of Receiver and that was pending for some time. Thereafter, talks were in progress for arriving at a settlement out of court. When such talks failed, the appellant filed an application under section 8 of the Act before filing the written statement or filing any other statement which could be considered to be a submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute. The High Court was not therefore justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay.The nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in an application under section 11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrators, are far narrower than those arising in an application under section 8 of the Act, seeking reference of the parties to a suit to arbitration. While considering an application under section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice or his designate would not embark upon an examination of the issue of `arbitrability or appropriateness of adjudication by a private forum, once he finds that there was an arbitration agreement between or among the parties, and would leave the issue of arbitrability for the decision of the arbitral Tribunal. If the arbitrator wrongly holds that the dispute is arbitrable, the aggrieved party will have to challenge the award by filing an application under section 34 of the Act, relying upon sub-section 2(b)(i) of that section. But where the issue of `arbitrability arises in the context of an application under section 8 of the Act in a pending suit, all aspects of arbitrability have to be decided by the court seized of the suit, and cannot be left to the decision of the Arbitrator. Even if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, and even if the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement, the court where the civil suit is pending, will refuse an application under Section 8 of the Act, to refer the parties to arbitration, if the subject matter of the suit is capable of adjudication only by a public forum or the relief claimed can only be granted by a special court or Tribunal.A decree for sale of a mortgaged property as in the case of a decree for order of winding up, requires the court to protect the interests of persons other than the parties to the suit/petition and empowers the court to entertain and adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of third parties (other than those who are parties to the arbitration agreement). Therefore, a suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgaged property, should only be tried by a public forum, and not by an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, it follows that the court where the mortgage suit is pending, should not refer the parties to arbitration.Having regard to our finding on question (iv) it has to be held that the suit being one for enforcement of a mortgage by sale, it should be tried by the court and not by an arbitral tribunal. Therefore we uphold the dismissal of the application under section 8 of the Act, though for different reasons.
### Instruction:
First, predict whether the appeal in case proceeding will be accepted (1) or not (0), and then explain the decision by identifying crucial sentences from the document.

### Input:
and direct that if the mortgagor pays into court, the amount so found due, on or before such date as the court may fix (within six months from the date on which the court confirms the account taken or from the date on which the court declares the amount due), the petitioner shall deliver the documents and if necessary re-transfer the property to the defendant; and further direct that if the mortgagor defaults in payment of such dues, then the mortgagee will be entitled to final decree for sale of the property or part thereof and pay into court the sale proceeds, and to adjudge the subsequent costs, charges, expenses and interest and direct that the balance be paid to mortgagor/defendant or other persons entitled to receive the same. An arbitral tribunal will not be able to do so. (iv) Where in a suit for sale (or in a suit for foreclosure in which sale is ordered), subsequent mortgagees or persons deriving title from, or subrogated to the rights of any such mortgagees are joined as parties, the court while making the preliminary decree for sale under Rule 4(1), could provide for adjudication of the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to the suit in a manner and form set forth in Form Nos. 9, 10, and 11 of appendix `D to the Code with such variations as the circumstances of the case may require. In a suit for foreclosure in the case of an anomalous mortgage, if the plaintiff succeeds, the court may, at the instance of any party to the suit or any other party interested in the mortgage security or the right of redemption, pass a like decree in lieu of a decree for foreclosure, on such terms as it thinks fit. But an arbitral tribunal will not be able to do. (v) The court has the power under Rule 4(2), on good cause being shown and upon terms to be fixed by it, from time to time, at any time before a final decree is passed, extend the time fixed for payment of the amount found or declared due or the amount adjudged due in respect of subsequent costs, changes, expenses and interest, upon such terms as it deems fit. The Arbitral Tribunal will have no such power. 28. A decree for sale of a mortgaged property as in the case of a decree for order of winding up, requires the court to protect the interests of persons other than the parties to the suit/petition and empowers the court to entertain and adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of third parties (other than those who are parties to the arbitration agreement). Therefore, a suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgaged property, should only be tried by a public forum, and not by an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, it follows that the court where the mortgage suit is pending, should not refer the parties to arbitration. 29. The appellant contended that the suit ultimately raises the following core issues, which can be decided by a private forum: (i) Whether there is a valid mortgage or charge in favour of SBI? (ii) What is the amount due to SBI? and (iii) Whether SBI could seek eviction of appellant from the flat, even if it is entitled to enforce the mortgage/charge? It was submitted that merely because mortgage suits involve passing of preliminary decrees and final decrees, they do not get excluded from arbitrable disputes. It is pointed out that the arbitral tribunals can also make interim awards deciding certain aspects of the disputes finally which can be equated to preliminary decrees granted by courts, and the final award made by the arbitrator, after detailed accounting etc. could be compared to the final decree by courts. It is therefore contended that there is no impediment for the parties to mortgage suits being referred to arbitration under section 8 of the Act. If the three issues referred by the appellant are the only disputes, it may be possible to refer them to arbitration. But a mortgage suit is not only about determination of the existence of the mortgage or determination of the amount due. It is about enforcement of the mortgage with reference to an immovable property and adjudicating upon the rights and obligations of several classes of persons (referred to in para 27 (ii) above), who have the right to participate in the proceedings relating to the enforcement of the mortgage, vis-à-vis the mortgagor and mortgagee. Even if some of the issues or questions in a mortgage suit (as pointed out by the appellant) are arbitrable or could be decided by a private forum, the issues in a mortgage suit cannot be divided. The following observations of this court in a somewhat different context, in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H.Pandya - 2003 (5) SCC 531 are relevant: "The next question which requires consideration is--even if there is no provision for partly referring the dispute to arbitration, whether such a course is possible under Section 8 of the Act? In our view, it would be difficult to give an interpretation to Section 8 under which bifurcation of the cause of action that is to say the subject matter of the suit or in some cases bifurcation of the suit between parties who are parties to the arbitration agreement and others is possible. This would be laying down a totally new procedure not contemplated under the Act. If bifurcation of the subject matter of a suit was contemplated, the legislature would have used appropriate language to permit such a course. Since there is no such indication in the language, it follows that bifurcation of the subject matter of an action brought before a judicial authority is not allowed." Conclusion 30. Having regard to our finding on question (iv) it has to be held that the suit being one for enforcement of a mortgage by sale, it should be tried by the court and not by an arbitral tribunal.

### Response:
0

### Explanation:
making the application under section 8 of the Act, to the jurisdiction of the judicial authority; and what should be decided by the court is whether the party seeking reference to arbitration has waived his right to invoke the arbitration clause. This Court then proceeded to consider whether contesting an application for temporary injunction by filing a counter, would amount to subjecting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.In this case, the counter affidavit dated 15.12.1999, filed by the appellant in reply to the notice of motion (seeking appointment of a receiver and grant of a temporary injunction) clearly stated that the reply affidavit was being filed for the limited purpose of opposing the interim relief. Even in the absence of such a disclaimer, filing a detailed objection to an application for interim relief cannot be considered to be submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute resulting in submitting oneself to the jurisdiction of the court.Though section 8 does not prescribe any time limit for filing an application under that section, and only states that the application under section 8 of the Act should be filed before submission of the first statement on the substance of the dispute, the scheme of the Act and the provisions of the section clearly indicate that the application thereunder should be made at the earliest. Obviously, a party who willingly participates in the proceedings in the suit and subjects himself to the jurisdiction of the court cannot subsequently turn round and say that the parties should be referred to arbitration in view of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Whether a party has waived his right to seek arbitration and subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court, depends upon the conduct of such party in the suit. When plaintiffs file applications for interim relief like appointment of a receiver or grant of a temporary injunction, the defendants have to contest the application. Such contest may even lead to appeals and revisions where there may be even stay of further proceedings in the suit. If supplemental proceedings like applications for temporary injunction on appointment of Receiver, have been pending for a considerable time and a defendant has been contesting such supplemental proceedings, it cannot be said that the defendant has lost the right to seek reference to arbitration. At the relevant time, the unamended Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code was governing the filing of written statements and the said rule did not prescribe any time limit for filing written statement. In such a situation, mere passage of time between the date of entering appearance and date of filing the application under section 8 of the Act, can not lead to an inference that a defendant subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court for adjudication of the main dispute. The facts in this case show that the plaintiff in the suit had filed an application for temporary injunction and appointment of Receiver and that was pending for some time. Thereafter, talks were in progress for arriving at a settlement out of court. When such talks failed, the appellant filed an application under section 8 of the Act before filing the written statement or filing any other statement which could be considered to be a submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute. The High Court was not therefore justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay.The nature and scope of issues arising for consideration in an application under section 11 of the Act for appointment of arbitrators, are far narrower than those arising in an application under section 8 of the Act, seeking reference of the parties to a suit to arbitration. While considering an application under section 11 of the Act, the Chief Justice or his designate would not embark upon an examination of the issue of `arbitrability or appropriateness of adjudication by a private forum, once he finds that there was an arbitration agreement between or among the parties, and would leave the issue of arbitrability for the decision of the arbitral Tribunal. If the arbitrator wrongly holds that the dispute is arbitrable, the aggrieved party will have to challenge the award by filing an application under section 34 of the Act, relying upon sub-section 2(b)(i) of that section. But where the issue of `arbitrability arises in the context of an application under section 8 of the Act in a pending suit, all aspects of arbitrability have to be decided by the court seized of the suit, and cannot be left to the decision of the Arbitrator. Even if there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, and even if the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement, the court where the civil suit is pending, will refuse an application under Section 8 of the Act, to refer the parties to arbitration, if the subject matter of the suit is capable of adjudication only by a public forum or the relief claimed can only be granted by a special court or Tribunal.A decree for sale of a mortgaged property as in the case of a decree for order of winding up, requires the court to protect the interests of persons other than the parties to the suit/petition and empowers the court to entertain and adjudicate upon rights and liabilities of third parties (other than those who are parties to the arbitration agreement). Therefore, a suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of a mortgaged property, should only be tried by a public forum, and not by an arbitral tribunal. Consequently, it follows that the court where the mortgage suit is pending, should not refer the parties to arbitration.Having regard to our finding on question (iv) it has to be held that the suit being one for enforcement of a mortgage by sale, it should be tried by the court and not by an arbitral tribunal. Therefore we uphold the dismissal of the application under section 8 of the Act, though for different reasons.
