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 Honble Delhi High Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Satpal Singh , the parties were bound by the Arbitration Agreement and inBakshi, 2013 (134) DRJ 566 (FB) 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 asres integra stands concluded by a number of authoritative pronouncements by the Honble Supreme Court (see Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society v. M. Lalitha (dead) (2004) 1 SCC 305 through LRs & Ors., ; Skypak Couriers Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., (2000) 5 SCC 294 (2012) 2 SCC; and National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. Madusudan Reddy, 506).
In light of the said decisions of the Honble 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 Courts 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