Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

These revision petitions are referred to the Division Bench particularly on the question whether T.M.L Financial Services Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar (2010 (1) KLT 209), hereinafter referred to as 'T.M.L.', requires reconsideration. The impact if any, of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 'A & C Act', is focused in the reference order as a question that may be germane for consideration.

2. T.M.L was decided in a matter that arose from a suit filed for damages and for a declaration that the plaintiff was not liable to repay any outstanding instalments defaulted on a loan availed from the defendant. Holding out an arbitration agreement, the defendant invoked Section 8 of the A& C Act and applied to the trial court to refer the parties to arbitration. That was refused. That led to the judgment in T.M.L, holding, inter alia, that when the agreement is opposed to public policy or where one of the parties commit acts which are per se illegal and causes injury to the other party, the arbitration agreement cannot be put forward as a shield. In T M.L, it was found that suit of a civil nature would lie in sit