Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. When the suit is in respect of the matter which falls partly within the arbitration agreement and partly outside the arbitration agreement and when the dispute involves the parties of which one is party (1st Defendant) to agreement and the other Defendants viz., 2nd and 4th Defendants are not so whether Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is attracted and in view of Clause 14 of the agreement dated 21.3.2012 whether the learned single Judge was right in directing the parties to refer the matter to arbitration are the points falling for consideration in this intra court appeal. 2. To examine the contentious points urged, it is necessary to refer the plaint averments and the application filed by the 1st Defendant under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short Act).Plaintiff is the Appellant. 3. Case of Appellant-Plaintiff:-Appellant-Plaintiff (R.K. Productions Private Limited) is a production house and they produced the movie "3" in Tamil language and the same was released on 30.3.2012 in all theatres.1st Defendant (N.K. Theatres Private Limited) approached the Plaintiff for assignment of copyright in the said movie for Telugu dubbing rights and remaking rights in Telugu. To that effect, a letter of understanding dated 17.3.2012 was executed between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. Thereafter on 21.3.2012, Plaintiff and 1st Defendant entered into an agreement at Chennai whereby the Plaintiff assigned the copyright in Telugu dubbing rights in movie "3" subject to various conditions. As per Clause 2 of the agreement, 1st Defendant agreed to pay the amount to the Plaintiff as follows:- (i) An amount of Rs.50,00,000/- through Cheque No.347819 dated 17.3.2012 drawn on Andhra Bank; (ii) An amount of Rs.50,00,000/-through Cheque No.347820 dated 20.03.2012 drawn on Andhra Bank; (iii) An amount of Rs.50,00,000/-through Cheque No.347821 dated 25.3.2012 drawn on Andhra Bank; (iv) An amount of Rs.50,00,000/-through Cheque No.347822 dated 26.3.2012 drawn on Andhra Bank; (v) An amount of Rs.2,35,00,000/- before prints delivery in Lab. 4. The payment of aforesaid amount to the Plaintiff is one of the conditions of assignment of copyright and any contravention thereof would be deemed to be an infringement of copyright as per Section 51 of Copyright Act, 1957.But the 1st Defendant failed to pay the last instalment of Rs.2,35,00,000/-before prints delivery in Lab. 4. The payment of aforesaid amount to the Plaintiff is one of the conditions of assignment of copyright and any contravention thereof would be deemed to be an infringement of copyright as per Section 51 of Copyright Act, 1957.But the 1st Defendant failed to pay the last instalment of Rs.2,35,00,000/-before prints delivery in Lab. However, 1st Defendant obtained the prints on the basis of their undertaking for payment of balance sum and also by issuing three Cheques bearing (i) No.000201 dated 29.03.2012 for Rs.50,00,000/-; (ii) No.000202 dated 29.03.2012 forRs.50,00,000/- and (iii) No.000203 dated 29.03.2012 for Rs.35,00,000/-, in all totalling a sum of Rs.1,35,00,000/- infavour of Plaintiff. Based on the said three Cheques, the prints were instructed to be released by the Plaintiff. The Cheques when presented for collection were returned by the Banker of the 1st Defendant with an endorsement "funds insufficient". 5. The 1st Defendant had entered into an assignment agreement with the 2nd Defendant (Mango Mass Media Private Limited) towards exploitation of Satellite rights of suit movie in contravention of the agreement and the same was communicated to the 3rd Defendant-Lab.2nd Defendant had entered into an agreement with the 4th Defendant (Zee Telugu Limited) to broadcast the suit film in their Channel and the same was also communicated to the 3rd Defendant-Lab. Plaintiff has also issued letter to the 3rd Defendant (Gemini Industries & Imaging Private Limited) to refrain from issuing Satellite clearance letter of the Lab until the conditions of the assignment agreement was complied with by the 1st Defendant by making balance payment of Rs.2,35,00,000/-. Since the Satellite rights are about to be exploited by the Defendants without paying the dues, the Plaintiff has filed the suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agent, servant, distributor or anyone claiming under them from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright, particularly, the Satellite rights in Telugu dubbing and remake of the movie "3" starring Dhanush, Shruthi Hasan and music composed by Anirudh, until payment of Rs.2,35,00,000/-to the Plaintiff. Along with the suit, Plaintiff also filed O.A.No.303 of 2012 seeking temporary injunction in which interim injunction was granted by order dated 17.4.2012. 6. A.No.2275 of 2012 in C.S.No.258 of 2012:- 1st Defendant filed A.No.2275 of 2012 under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and sought for a direction to refer the matter to arbitration and reject the plaint. Along with the suit, Plaintiff also filed O.A.No.303 of 2012 seeking temporary injunction in which interim injunction was granted by order dated 17.4.2012. 6. A.No.2275 of 2012 in C.S.No.258 of 2012:- 1st Defendant filed A.No.2275 of 2012 under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and sought for a direction to refer the matter to arbitration and reject the plaint. Case of 1st Defendant is that agreement dated 21.3.2012 is for a period of 99 years, whereby it was agreed that Plaintiff would assign the copyright and Telugu dubbing rights in the suit film to the 1st Defendant. According to 1st Defendant, he paid the entire amount leaving a balance of Rs.9,50,000/-out of Rs.4.35 Crores which was also adjusted after deliberations and there are no amounts due and payable by him to the Plaintiff. As per Clause 14 of the agreement in case of any dispute arising out of the agreement, parties have agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. In the light of Clause 14 of the agreement, Suit - C.S.No.258 of 2012 filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable and prayed for a direction to refer the matter to arbitration. 7. Appellant-Plaintiff resisted the application contending that suit is in the nature of enforcement of right in rem and the copyright infringement action which must be adjudicated by a public forum. Plaintiff also raised an objection that Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the agreement dated 21.3.2012 and when third party rights have been involved in the matter and when they are not parties to arbitration agreement, they cannot be subjected to arbitration proceeding. 8. Considering the rival contentions, learned single Judge held that as per Clause 14 of the agreement, any dispute arising between the parties thereto in connection with any of the Clauses contained in the agreement, the matter shall be referred to arbitration and the parties are to resolve their dispute by arbitration. It was further held that if payment of the balance amount is decided by the Arbitrator, the issue of infringement of copyright would automatically come to an end and in view of Clause 14 of the agreement, the parties were directed to refer the matter to arbitration and consequently, plaint(C.S.No.258 of 2012) was rejected. 9. Contentions:- Mr. It was further held that if payment of the balance amount is decided by the Arbitrator, the issue of infringement of copyright would automatically come to an end and in view of Clause 14 of the agreement, the parties were directed to refer the matter to arbitration and consequently, plaint(C.S.No.258 of 2012) was rejected. 9. Contentions:- Mr. Yashod Vardhan, learned Senior Counsel for Appellant contended that the learned single Judge did not keep in view that the suit is in the nature of copyright infringement action which must be adjudicated by a public forum. It was contended that Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the arbitration agreement and while so, one part of the suit cannot be referred to arbitration and that the subject matter of the suit cannot be bifurcated. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon (2003) 5 SCC 531 [Sukanya Holdings (P) Limited v. Jayesh H. Pandya and another]. 10. On behalf of 1st Respondent, Mr. S.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel contended that Clause 14 of the agreement widely worded to cover "any dispute" and even though Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to arbitration agreement, the matter can be referred to Arbitrator. It was argued that 2nd Defendant has no independent right against the Plaintiff and that Defendants 2 and 4 gets right only through 1st Defendant and therefore, there is no impediment for referring the matter to arbitration. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance upon 156 (2009) DLT 406 : MANU/DE/0010/2009 [Ministry of Sound International Ltd. v. Indus Renaisance Partners Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.] and 2012 (9) SCALE 595 [Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and others]. 11. We have also heard Mr. K.P. Sathish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent and Ms. R. Maheswari, learned counsel appearing for 3rd Respondent. 12. Discussion: Clause 14 of agreement [21.3.2012] entered between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant reads as under:- "14. In any event of any dispute arising between the parties hereto in connection with any of clauses contained herein, the matter shall be referred to arbitration of such persons as the parties hereto any mutually agree upon and the same be decided in accordance with the provision the Indian Arbitration Act, there in force. This Agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Chennai only." 13. This Agreement is subject to the jurisdiction of Courts in Chennai only." 13. Under agreement dated 21.3.2012, after 1st Defendant got assignment of Telugu dubbing rights and other rights of suit film, 1st Defendant entered into an assignment agreement with the 2nd Defendant with regard to exploitation of Satellite rights of suit movie and the same was communicated to the 3rd Defendant-Lab.2nd Defendant in turn entered into an agreement with the 4th Defendant to broadcast the suit film in their Channel and the same was also communicated to the 3rd Defendant-Lab. Alleging non-payment of last instalment in the suit, Plaintiff seeks permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's copyright and Satellite rights in Telugu dubbing and remake of the suit film. Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the agreement between Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant which contains arbitration clause. When Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the arbitration agreement, whether the matter could be referred to arbitration is the point falling for consideration. 14. In Sukanya Holdings case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of relevant language used in Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act - "in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement". Observing that the subject matter of suit cannot be bifurcated, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "14. Thirdly, there is no provision as to what is required to be done in a case where some parties to the suit are not parties to the arbitration agreement. As against this, under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, some of the parties to a suit could apply that the matters in difference between them be referred to arbitration and the court may refer the same to arbitration provided that the same can be separated from the rest of the subject-matter of the suit. The section also provided that the suit would continue so far as it related to parties who have not joined in such application. 15. The relevant language used in Section 8 is: "in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement". The court is required to refer the parties to arbitration. Therefore, the suit should be in respect of "a matter" which the parties have agreed to refer and which comes within the ambit of arbitration agreement. 15. The relevant language used in Section 8 is: "in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement". The court is required to refer the parties to arbitration. Therefore, the suit should be in respect of "a matter" which the parties have agreed to refer and which comes within the ambit of arbitration agreement. Where, however, a suit is commenced "as to a matter" which lies outside the arbitration agreement and is also between some of the parties who are not parties to the arbitration agreement, there is no question of application of Section 8.The words "a matter" indicate that the entire subject-matter of the suit should be subject to arbitration agreement. 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. 17. Secondly, such bifurcation of suit in two parts, one to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal and the other to be decided by the civil court would inevitably delay the proceedings. The whole purpose of speedy disposal of dispute and decreasing the cost of litigation would be frustrated by such procedure. It would also increase the cost of litigation and harassment to the parties and on occasions there is possibility of conflicting judgments and orders by two different forums." (underlining added) 15. Contending that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reconsidered Sukanya Holdings case, learned counsel for 1st Defendant drew our attention to 2012 (9) SCALE 595 [Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and others]. Contending that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reconsidered Sukanya Holdings case, learned counsel for 1st Defendant drew our attention to 2012 (9) SCALE 595 [Chloro Controls (I) P. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and others]. In the said decision, in Paragraph (2), the Hon'ble Supreme Court framed the question whether the principles enunciated in the case of Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Limited (2003) 5 SCC 531 is the correct exposition of law. Chloro Controls case arises out of Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Observing that the dictum laid down in Sukanya Holdings case has no application to Chloro Controls case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to examine the merit of the said question framed. Therefore, the dictum laid down in Sukanya Holdings case holds the field. 16. Contending that even though Defendants 2 and 4 are not parties to the agreement which contains arbitration Clause, Clause 14 of the agreement is widely worded and that the entire subject matter of the suit is covered by arbitration, learned counsel for 1st Defendant placed reliance upon 156 (2009) DLT 406 : MANU/DE/0010/2009 [Ministry of Sound International Ltd. v. Indus Renaisance Parners Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.]. In the said case before the single Judge of Delhi High Court, Defendants 4 and 5 thereon were not parties to the arbitration agreement which was entered into between Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. By a reading of the said decision, it is seen that Plaintiff expressed that he had no intention to open new night club in collaboration with Defendants 4 and 5.Under such facts and circumstances of the case, notwithstanding that Defendants 4 and 5 were not parties to the arbitration agreement, the single Judge of Delhi High Court directed the parties to refer the matter to arbitration. 17. The above decision does not apply to the case on hand. After getting assignment rights from the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant entered into an agreement with the 2nd Defendant, who in turn entered into agreement with 4th Defendant for telecasting the suit film in their Channel and 4th Defendant is exploiting the film. The Plaintiff seeks for permanent injunction restraining all the Defendants from infringing its copyright over the Telugu dubbing of the suit film. 18. Considering the scope of "arbitrability" of dispute and the factors that are to be examined by the Court, in (2011) 5 SCC 532 [Boozallen and Hamilton Inc. The Plaintiff seeks for permanent injunction restraining all the Defendants from infringing its copyright over the Telugu dubbing of the suit film. 18. Considering the scope of "arbitrability" of dispute and the factors that are to be examined by the Court, in (2011) 5 SCC 532 [Boozallen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "19. Where a suit is filed by one of the parties to an arbitration agreement against the other parties to the arbitration agreement, and if the defendants file an application under Section 8 stating that the parties should be referred to arbitration, the court (judicial authority) will have to decide: (i) whether there is an arbitration agreement among the parties; (ii) whether all the parties to the suit are parties to the arbitration agreement; (iii) whether the disputes which are the subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration agreement; (iv) whether the defendant had applied under Section 8 of the Act before submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute; and (v) whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can be adjudicated and granted in an arbitration. 19. Considering the present case in the light of the above principles, the dispute pertains to exploitation of Telugu dubbing rights of suit film. The subject matter of the suit interalia raises the issues (i) whether the last instalment of Rs.2,35,00,000/-was paid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff; (ii) without paying the last instalment, can 1st Defendant assign Telugu dubbing rights and remake of the suit film to the2nd Defendant; (iii) based on the agreement executed by 1st Defendant for which amount is stated to be due, whether Defendants 2 and 4 can exploit the rights and(iv) whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction restraining the Defendants 2 and 4 from infringing their copyright. All the above issues are in extricably mixed and those issues cannot be spilit up. Bifurcation of the issues would only lead to delay in resolving the dispute. Since the cause of action and subject matter of dispute arise against all of them i.e. Defendants 1 to 4 and applying the ratio of Sukanya Holdings case, the subject matter of the suit cannot be bifurcated by referring the matter to arbitration. 20. Bifurcation of the issues would only lead to delay in resolving the dispute. Since the cause of action and subject matter of dispute arise against all of them i.e. Defendants 1 to 4 and applying the ratio of Sukanya Holdings case, the subject matter of the suit cannot be bifurcated by referring the matter to arbitration. 20. The single Judge was not right in holding that the only issue involved is with regard to non-payment of the amount and that if the payment of balance amount is decided by the Arbitrator, the issue of infringement of copyright would automatically come to an end. We are not inclined to endorse the views of the learned Judge. By a careful perusal of the order of the single Judge, we find that Sukanya Holdings case was not brought to the notice of the single Judge. Therefore, applying the ratio of Sukanya Holdings case, we are of the view that the subject matter of the suit cannot be bifurcated to refer the parties to arbitration and that the appeal is to be allowed. 21. In the result, the order of single Judge in A.No.2275 of 2012 in C.S.No.258 of 2012 is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The suit -C.S.No.258 of 2012 is ordered to be restored on file. Respondents-Defendants shall file written statement and the matter shall be proceeded in accordance with law. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.