The attempt of the trial court and the approach made
by the high court in bifurcating the cause of action, is
fallacious. It would only lead to delaying and complicating the
process. The said issue is also no more res integra. In Sukanya
Holdings (P) Limited v. Jayesh Pandya and another4 at
paragraphs-16 and 17, it was held as follows:
“16. 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.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2079 OF 2015
M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited V T. Thankam
Dated;February 20, 2015.
Citation:AIR 2015 SC 1303
