Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010263942022 2025:GAU-AS:16068 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/318/2022 HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND ANR REGD OFFICE AT RADHIKA 2ND FLOOR LAW GARDEN ROAD NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD GUJRAT-380009 2: THE BRANCH MANAGER HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 1ST FLOOR MEZZANINE DISHA ENCLAVE ARUNODOI PATH G.S. ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005 DIST. KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS ABDUL ALIM S/O KAMAL UDDIN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O BANGALPARA P.S HAJO DIST KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LALMATI NARBAM PATH .P.O. ANA P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN-781029 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mukesh Sharma, MS. S YASMIN,MR P AGARWAL Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 26.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent on call in spite of service of notice. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 23.08.2022, passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.246/2021, arising out of T.S. No.42/2021. 3. In the said suit, being the defendants, the petitioners filed an application under Page No.# 2/2 Section 5 and 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because at the time of purchasing the vehicle, the respondent/ plaintiff of the suit entered into an agreement with the petitioners and agreed in case of any dispute or difference between the parties of the agreement, the matter shall be referred to Arbitration. 4. The respondent also agreed that the venue of conducting the Arbitration process shall be Chennai. 5. The learned Court below refused the prayer of the defendants on the basis of some Judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are: i. TRF Ltd. Vs. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) 8 SCC 377, ii. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. Vs. HSCC (India) Ltd, 2019 SCC Online SC 1517 and iii. Voestapline Schienen Gmbh Vs. DMRC, (2017) 4 SCC 665. 6. The learned Trial Court has erroneously interpreted the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in those Judgments. 7. Since the parties are bound by the agreement, there is no other way rather than to refer the matter to Arbitration and Regarding the venue of Arbitration, the respondent has agreed in the said agreement, therefore he is bound by it. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in in Misc. (J) Case No.246/2021, arising out of T.S. No.42/2021 is set aside. 9. The matter shall be referred to Arbitration has been agreed by the parties. 10. With the aforesaid direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant