JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) - Plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for possession by way of mandatory injunction requesting the Court to direct the defendant (petitioner herein),to handover possession of the vehicle financed by the said defendant. In the said suit, defendant filed an application, under the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). This was keeping in view the terms of the Arbitration Clause No. 15 so contained in the agreement, entered into inter se the parties. In the response so filed, though plaintiff disputed execution of the agreement, however such denial, prima-facie, appears to be false, for the reason that the suit itself is based on the very same agreement dated 05.02.2008. 2. Dismissal of such application, by the Court below, in terms of impugned order dated 02.06.2014, is legally unsustainable in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Fiannce Limited and another v. Potluri Madhavilata and another, (2009) 10 SCC 103 . 3. The appellant before the Apex Court had also moved an application in the suit filed by the respondent therein, seeking recovery of possession of the vehicle, possession whereof was taken pursuant to the defaults committed by the plaintiff/respondent. Application filed by the appellant, seeking reference of the dispute to the Arbitrator, in terms of the Arbitral Clause, stood dismissed both by the trial Court as also the High Court. However, relying upon its earlier decision rendered in Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta & Bros, AIR 1959 SC 1362 , as also illustrative decision rendered by House of Lords in Heyman v. Darwins Ltd., 1942 AC 356, the Apex Court quashed and set-aside such orders passed by the Courts below. The Court categorically held that the Legislature commanded the Court to refer the dispute, upon satisfaction of all conditions stipulated under Section 8 of the Act and that there was no option but to comply with the same. 4. In the instant case, the Court below has not rejected the application on the ground that the agreement, containing the Arbitration Clause, was not executed between the parties. The rejection is only on the ground that illegal seizure of vehicle is a dispute which is not covered by the arbitration clause so contained in the hypothecation deed. 4. In the instant case, the Court below has not rejected the application on the ground that the agreement, containing the Arbitration Clause, was not executed between the parties. The rejection is only on the ground that illegal seizure of vehicle is a dispute which is not covered by the arbitration clause so contained in the hypothecation deed. While taking such view, it referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Kerala in M/s. T.M.L. Financial Services Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 726(Kerala). It is here that the Court committed an illegality. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Potluri Madhavilata (supra), which was subsequently followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjit Kumar Bose and another v. Anannya Chowdhury and another, (2014) 11 SCC 446 , the Court ought to have allowed the application, particularly when there was no dispute with regard to execution of the agreement containing arbitration clause. All statutory conditions stood complied with. Seizure of vehicle, illegal or not is a dispute squarely covered by the Arbitration Clause. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is allowed and impugned order dated 2nd June, 2014, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 2, Una, H.P., is quashed and set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Act is allowed. With the aforesaid observations, petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.