Point of Law : General law should yield to the special law - 'generalia specialibus non derogant'. In such a situation, the approach shall not be to see whether there is still jurisdiction in the civil court under the general law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 115 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is preferred by the petitioner, namely, International Air Transport Association (IATA), for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 20.07.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in Petition No. 6363/2014 filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in M.S. No. 53/2014. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati has rejected the petition No. 6363/14 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce the copy of the original agreement or a duly certified copy thereof, even though the entire case of the respondent no. 1 is based upon the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement (PSSA), dated 15.06.2006.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“…The respondent no. 1, Indrani Air Travels Pvt. Ltd. is an agent of the petitioner-International Air Transport Association (IATA) and respondent no. 2-Pantheon Data Service Pvt. Ltd. on the strength of an agreement dated 15.06.2006. The respondent no. 1 instituted a Money Suit being Money Suit No. 53/2014 against the petitioner and respondent no. 2, claiming a sum of Rs. 64,57,311/-(Rupees Sixty Four Lakh Fifty Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Eleven) before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup(M) Guwahati. The petitioner, having entered appearance, filed a petition, being Petition no. 6363/2014, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, bringing to the notice of the Court that in view of the agreement for arbitration between the parties, regarding resolution of dispute, the Court did not have the jurisdiction to try the Suit. The learned Court below, after hearing the parties, dismissed the petition on the ground that sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not been complied with. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present revision petition”.

3. I have heard Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. D. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that some disputes in respect of financial matters arose between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 1, filed one money suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge Kamrup, being Money Suit no. 53/2014 against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned Court of Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup and filed a petition being Petition no. 6363/2014, under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law as well as in fact as the same has been filed by suppressing material facts. Mr. Senapati further submits that the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 entered and executed one Passenger Sales Agency Agreement, dated 15.06.2006 with the respondent no. 1 and pursuant to Section 2.1(a) of the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement (hereinafter, referred to as PSSA), the terms and condition governing the relationship between them are set forward in the Regulations contained in the Travel Agent’s Handbook, published from time to time under the authority of the Administrator. It is further submitted that Section 1 of the Resolution 820e, as incorporated in the PSSA, provides that an application before the Travel Commissioner is a condition precedent in dispute or difference between the plaintiff and the defendant, which reads as under “all disputes or difference arising out of or in connection with matters enumerated in the present Section shall be finally settled, subject to review by arbitration pursuant to Section 4 herein, by the Commissioner, in accordance with this Resolution and as such, Mr. Senapati submits, the Court should exercise