The car was purchased on loan granted by the appellant.
Duly companyplying with the procedure under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant filed an application bringing to the numberice of the trial companyrt that in view of the agreement for arbitration between the parties regarding resolution of the disputes, the companyrt did number have jurisdiction to try the case and the parties were to be directed to the process of arbitration in terms of the agreement.
The apprehended acts of the plaintiff are against the public policy and per se illegal and hence this suit is maintainable.
In a suit for injunction filed by the respondent, the prayer made was to restrain the first and second defendant institutions and their men from illegally taking away from the possession of plaintiff or her employee, or interfering with the use and enjoyment of ambassador or causing damage to the car bearing registration number KL 11 AA 1473 in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff by way of a decree of injunction.
The trial companyrt, by order dated 21.06.2010, declined the relief holding that Even though clause 22 of the Ext.
The appellant pursued the matter before the High Court.
Clause 22 a , as to the extent relevant, reads as follows 22.
Heard the learned companynsel appearing for the appellants.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
Once an application is duly filed in terms of Section 8 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act before the civil companyrt, what should be the approach of the companyrt, is the short question arising for companysideration in this case.
Aggrieved, the appeal.
