Appeal against Single Judge's order allowing withdrawal of Section 8 application under Arbitration Act. Court held that appellant cannot oppose withdrawal since Section 8 right is waivable by defendant.
Present appeal along with applications is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~153
Through: Mr.Kunal Tandon with Mr.Saurabh D.Karan Singh, Ms.Natasha, Mr.Sanjay Shisodia and Ms.Neha Arya, Advocates.
versus
KARTIK SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Chandra Prakash, Advocate (Through VC)
%
Date of Decision: 18th October, 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 1 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 2 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
that he is the original author in respect of the books.
(a) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 SCC 503;
“15. The question then would arise: what would be the role of the Civil Court when an argument is raised that such an arbitration clause does not apply to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 3 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
facts of the case in hand? Learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is a matter which should be raised before the arbitrator who is competent to adjudicate upon the same and the Civil Court should not embark upon an inquiry in regard to the applicability of the arbitration clause to the facts of the case. While learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that since the applicability of the arbitration clause to the facts of the case goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the reference to arbitration, this question will have to be decided by the Civil Court before referring the matter to arbitration even in cases where there is admittedly an arbitration clause. The answer to this argument, in our opinion, is found in Section 16 of the Act itself. It has empowered the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction including rule on any objection with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement....”
(b) Kalpana Kothari vs. Sudha Yadav & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 203;
“9. On the ground of estoppel and the conduct of the appellants in getting their earlier application made under Section 34 of the 1940 Act dismissed as not pressed that the applications under Section 8 of the 1996 Act were not countenanced by the High Court. The fact that the earlier application under the 1940 Act was got dismissed as not pressed in the teeth of the repeal of the said Act cannot, in our view, constitute any legal impediment for having recourse to and avail of the avenues thrown open to parties under the 1996 Act. Similarly, having regard to the distinct purposes, scope and object of the respective provisions of law in these two Acts, the plea of estoppel can have no application to deprive the appellants of the legitimate right to invoke an all comprehensive provision of mandatory character like Section 8 of the 1996 Act to have the matter relating to the disputes referred to arbitration, in terms of the arbitration agreement.”
(c) Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and Anr. vs. Potluri Madhavilata and Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 103;
“18. Section 8 is in the form of legislative command to the court and once the pre-requisite conditions as aforestated are satisfied, the court must refer the parties to arbitration. As a matter of fact, on fulfillment of conditions of Section 8, no option is left to the court and the court has to refer the parties to arbitration. There is nothing on record that the pre-requisite conditions of Section 8 are not fully satisfied in the present case. The trial court, in the circumstances, ought to have referred the parties to arbitration as per arbitration clause 22.”
(d) P.Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors. vs. P.V.G. Raju & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 539;
“8. In the matter before us, the arbitration agreement covers all the disputes between the parties in the proceedings before us and even more than that. As already noted, the arbitration agreement satisfies the requirements of Section 7 of the new Act. The language of Section 8 is peremptory. It is, therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 4 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement. Nothing remains to be decided in the original action or the appeal arising therefrom. There is no question of stay of the proceedings till the arbitration proceedings conclude and the Award becomes final in terms of the provisions of the new Act. All the rights, obligations and remedies of the parties would now be governed by the new Act including the right to challenge the Award. The Court to which the party shall have recourse to challenge the Award would be the Court as defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the new Act and not the Court to which an application under Section 8 of the new Act is made. An application before a Court under Section 8 merely brings to the Courts notice that the subject matter of the action before it is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement. This would not be such an application as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act as the Court trying the action may or may not have had jurisdiction to try the suit to start with or be the competent Court within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the new Act.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 5 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
has an option to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 18, 2024 KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:19.10.2024 16:36:06
Page 6 of 6
FAO(OS) 148/2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant can insist on a reference to arbitration when the Respondent has withdrawn the Section 8 application.
Whether the Court is obligated to refer disputes to arbitration if the party seeking reference has not failed to meet the statutory conditions.
Whether a party that denies the existence of an arbitration clause can succeed in invoking arbitration based on another agreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway PetroleumsDoubted¶33
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 SCC 503 · Who else cites this
Kalpana Kothari vs. Sudha Yadav & Ors.Relied on¶40
Kalpana Kothari vs. Sudha Yadav & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 203 · Who else cites this
Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and Anr. vs. Potluri Madhavilata and Anr.Doubted¶42
Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and Anr. vs. Potluri Madhavilata and Anr. (2009) 10 SCC 103 · Who else cites this
P.Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors. vs. P.V.G. Raju & Ors.Doubted¶44
P.Anand Gajapathi Raju & Ors. vs. P.V.G. Raju & Ors. (2000) 4 SCC 539 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
M/S Sultan Chand and Sons Pvt. Ltd
Kartik Sharma
Manmohan
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
