The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the parties' agreement to arbitrate and the significance of the Respondent's implicit consent to arbitration through its application under Section 8 of the Act.

1. The Petitioner has applied for appointment of arbitrator U/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act.). The Respondent has opposed the appointment of any arbitrator despite admission of the fact of an arbitration agreement between the parties.

2. The Petitioner initially sued in the competent court in Guwahati. The Respondent challenged the territorial jurisdiction of that Court U/s.21 of the CPC. The Respondent also applied for reference of the dispute between the parties U/s. 8 of the Act. The Court returned the plaint to proper Court for filing upon holding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. For lack of jurisdiction it did not refer the dispute to arbitration. The suit has remained at that. It has not been filed in any other Court. It has not been adjudicated or decided. The dispute between the parties has accordingly not been adjudicated either by the judicial pronouncement or by the mode of alternative dispute resolution.

3. The Petitioner conceded that the arbitral forum is the appropriate forum. Consequently the Petitioner sought appointment of the arbitrator. When that was done the Respondent has contested and challenged that application. The Respondent claims that once the Petitioner files a suit it would not be entitled to then refer the dispute to arbitration by itself. Mr. Dhond argued that if the Petitioner sued and the Respondent did not challenge the judicial forum the Court would not refer the suit for arbitration U/s.8 of the Act. In that case the suit would proceed to hearing. However, in this case the Respondent has already taken out such an application. The Petitioner only accepts the legal position. If the Petitioner has sued in the Court having territorial jurisdiction and the Respondent had taken out application U/s.8 for reference of the dispute to arbitration the Petitioner may have conceded that fact and the dispute would have been so referred. Consequently the Petitioner may also concede such fact after the plaint is returned to proper Court for filing but has not been either disposed off by hearing or by dismissal.

4. In fact the dispute raised by the Respondent is wholly unnecessary. Arbitration would be the most appropriate and desirable forum since the parties have agreed to refer their dispute to arbitration. It may be mentioned that even if the Petitioner had sued and the Respondent did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court itself may have referred the dispute to arbitration U/s.89 of the CPC though not U/s.8 of the Act. The fact that the parties have themselves agreed to arbitrate shows that the dispute is amenable to arbitration and could have been referred to arbitration under such other provision of law.

5. Large number of judgments on the extraneous issues of the opposition to elect a forum have been relied upon by the Respondent.

6. In the case of Transcore Vs. Union of India & Anr., (2008) 1 Supreme Court Case 125, the election of a bank to sue under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or the DRT Act for releasing the secured assets came to be considered. The analogy is that the bank had to choose between the two statutes. It was not for the choice of the mainstream judicial forum and the alternative adjudicative forum.

7. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Lekhimoni Das & Ors., (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 640, it has been held that when the two remedies have been provided by law one would not operate in derogation of the other. A suit would not be barred by the summary or concurrent remedy but if the party persued such remedy and failed he could not proceed under the other provision. Again that analogy is wholly distinct.

8. In the case of Raj & Associates & Anr. Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors., 2004 (2) ARBLR614 (Delhi), the Plaintiff filed a Writ Petition which was disposed off granting liberty to initiate civil or arbitration proceeding. The Pla