Courts address overlapping jurisdiction between civil courts and arbitration tribunals by applying the principle of judicial restraint under Sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandate referral to arbitration when a valid arbitration agreement exists. The key precedent, Sukanya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003) 5 SCC 531, clarified that civil courts cannot bifurcate or partially refer disputes to arbitration when a suit contains both arbitrable and non‑arbitrable issues or involves parties not bound by an arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action must be referred as a whole or not at all, preventing parallel proceedings and conflicting judgments. However, post the 2015 amendment to Section 8, courts are now bound to refer matters to arbitration when a valid agreement exists, irrespective of multiple parties or mixed claims, as affirmed by later decisions such as Lindsay International Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Niwas Mittal (2021) and clarified further in subsequent High Court rulings. This evolution reflects a policy shift toward minimal judicial interference and prioritization of arbitration as the preferred dispute resolution mechanism.
