Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Certified Copy Sufficient Under Section 8(2) of Arbitration Act; Calcutta HC Sets Aside Trial Court's Refusal for Arbitration Referral

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Calcutta, in a significant judgment, held that the refusal of the trial court to refer a dispute to arbitration was erroneous, emphasizing the mandatory nature of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The crux of the judgment pertains to the interpretation of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner, M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court citing an arbitration clause in the agreement with Ms. Manju Khati, the respondent. The trial court had rejected this application for failure to produce the original or a duly certified copy of the agreement. The High Court, however, found this refusal inappropriate, underscoring the mandatory directive of Section 8 when certain prerequisites are met.

The core issue revolved around the existence of an arbitration agreement and the timely application by a party under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner argued that a certified copy of the agreement, attested by a Notary Public, was provided, meeting the statutory requirements. Conversely, the trial court had rejected this application, leading to the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Justice Prasenjit Biswas, meticulously analyzing the provisions of the Arbitration Act, observed that the conditions under Section 8 were evidently met. The Court referenced several Apex Court judgments, including ‘Sundaram Finance Limited Vs. T. Thankam’, to bolster its reasoning. The Court stressed that once the conditions under Section 8 are satisfied, the Court is left with no discretion but to refer the parties to arbitration.

Mandatory Nature of Section 8: The High Court emphasized that upon the fulfilment of prerequisites under Section 8, the Court must refer the dispute to arbitration, indicating the absence of judicial discretion in such scenarios.

Prima Facie Validity of Arbitration Clause: The Court asserted that a detailed analysis of the agreement’s terms is unnecessary; rather, the focus should be on the prima facie validity of the arbitration clause.

Compliance with Section 8(2): The Court found that the submission of the certified copy of the agreement, duly attested by a Notary Public, satisfied the requirements under Section 8(2) of the Act.

Decision: The Court allowed the revisional application, setting aside the trial court’s order and directing the matter to be referred to an arbitrator within one month.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited v. Ms. Manju Khati

Latest Legal News