Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

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