As per the case facts, the petitioners, who were original plaintiffs, filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order by the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court had allowed an application ... by the original defendants under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and referred the parties to arbitration. The petitioners had initially instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction related to trademarks. The High Court rejected the Civil Revision Petition, affirming the Commercial Court's order. The petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court was correct in affirming the Commercial Court's decision to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite the petitioners having filed a civil suit. Finally, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's judgment. The Court reiterated that if there is an arbitration agreement between parties, a judicial authority is obligated to refer the parties to arbitration by enforcing the contract terms, leaving no discretion to the court to avoid the legislative mandate. The principle that general law should yield to special law, especially when an arbitration agreement exists, was emphasized, as such an approach avoids delaying disputes and complicating grievance redressal. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed.