Causes of action can be split between civil courts and arbitral tribunals when a composite dispute involves both arbitrable and non‑arbitrable issues, provided that doing so promotes procedural efficiency without undermining jurisdictional principles. Courts invoke Order II Rule 6 CPC to separate matters that fall within statutory or exclusive court jurisdiction—such as fraud, landlord‑tenant disputes, or rights in rem—from those that can be resolved through private arbitration. The Taru Meghani v. Shree Tirupathi precedent (Bombay High Court, 2020) illustrates this power, where the court separated claims that would delay or complicate arbitration and referred only arbitrable issues to the tribunal. Indian law maintains balance through Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates minimal judicial interference while ensuring jurisdictional integrity for non‑arbitrable subjects. Cases such as Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Union of India have upheld that courts may retain partial jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, but only to safeguard public rights or statutory remedies, ensuring that efficiency never overrides the sanctity of proper legal forums.
