Dismissed¶27

Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Fullerton India) v. Harjinder Kaur & Anr.

Delhi HC8 Apr 2026FAO/50/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 8 A&C Act application maintainability; application beyond written-statement stage; no limitation period under Section 8 contention rejected; right to file written statement struck off 27.05.2023; arbitration clause Article 23 loan agreement; Section 8 read with Section 5 referral refused; FAO appeal dismissed; SPML Infra Ltd. Trisquare Switchgears 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1914; Hitachi Payments Services 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1042; Ranjana Bhasin 2024 SCC OnLine Del 465; Delhi High Court; Manoj Kumar Ohri; SMFG India Home Finance (Fullerton India); Harjinder Kaur.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 8 of the A&C Act, having been filed after the appellant's right to file the written statement was struck off, was not maintainable. ¶24

Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Fullerton… — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act is time-barred/maintainable when filed after the period for filing the written statement has expired and the right to file the written statement has been struck off. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The application under Section 8 of the A&C Act, having been filed after the appellant's right to file the written statement was struck off, was not maintainable.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The contention that no limitation is prescribed for filing an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act is fallacious; adopting the Division Bench view in SPML Infra Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1914), once proceedings progress beyond the stage of completion of pleadings an application under Section 8 would not lie.

¶18

Key takeaways

The appellant did not challenge the order striking off its right to file the written statement, which has thereby attained finality.ratio¶24
The appellant cannot be permitted to circumvent the consequences of its own default by invoking the arbitration clause at a belated stage.ratio¶25
There is no infirmity in the impugned Trial Court order; the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.; order dated 08.04.2026) dismissed FAO 50/2025, an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 104 and Order XLIII CPC, directed against the Trial Court's order dated 18.12.2024 in Civil Suit no. 1079/2022 dismissing the appellant-defendant's (SMFG India Home Finance Co. Ltd.) application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the A&C Act seeking reference to arbitration of disputes under Article 23 of the loan agreement. Held: the Section 8 application, filed only after the appellant's right to file the written statement was struck off on 27.05.2023 (summons served 27.03.2023), was not maintainable; the contention that no limitation period is provided under Section 8 was rejected as fallacious, relying on SPML Infra Ltd. vs. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1914, and the line of Hitachi Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shreyans Jain, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1042, and Ranjana Bhasin vs. Surender Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 465. The unchallenged strike-off order had attained finality, and the appellant could not circumvent the consequences of its own default by invoking the arbitration clause at a belated stage. The impugned order was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- FAO 50/2025

¶4

SMFG INDIA HOME FINANCE CO. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS FULLERTON INDIA) .....Appellant Through: Ms. Sandhya Chawla, Advocate

¶5

versus

¶6

HARJINDER KAUR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 08.04.2026

¶11

The present appeal filed under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the ‘A&C Act’) read with Section 104 and Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is directed against the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit no. 1079/2022. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the A&C Act seeking direction to refer the parties of the suit to arbitration.

¶12

It was claimed that the suit was filed in the context of a loan agreement, Article 23 whereof provided that disputes between the parties were to be referred to arbitration under the A&C Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the subject application by not appreciating that no limitation period is provided under Section 8 of the A&C Act. It is submitted that the

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:14:44

¶16

time period for filing a written statement is 90 days and, even otherwise, the application was filed on the 61^st day from the date of service of summons, i.e., 27.03.2023. It is further submitted that on the next date i.e., 25.04.2023, the appellant had requested the Trial Court to supply a legible copy of the plaint, as recorded in the order of that date. Thus, if counted from 25.04.2023, the subject application came to be filed on 32^nd day.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the present appeal, submits that the application under Section 8 of the A&C Act was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay.

¶18

A perusal of the record would reveal that, indisputably, the appellant was served with summons to settle the issues on 27.03.2023. Thereafter, the appellant appeared on the next date i.e., 25.04.2023, whereafter, on 27.05.2023, it was noted that since no written statement had been filed, the right to file the same was struck off. It was after the passing of the said order, the subject application under Section 8 of the A&C Act came to be filed. The contention that no limitation is prescribed for filing application under Section 8 of the A&C Act is fallacious, inasmuch as a Division Bench of this Court in SPML Infra Ltd. vs. Trisquare Switchgears Pvt. Ltd .¹ while considering the provision of Section 8 held as under:

¶19

“18. It is clear from the scheme of the Act that once the proceedings before the court or judicial authority progress beyond the initial stage, it would no longer be permissible for a party to then turn around and seek recourse to arbitration. A mere delay in making an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act may not be fatal to a party’s right; but once the proceedings have progressed beyond the stage of completion of pleadings, such an application would not lie. This is because at that stage, the parties are sufficiently invested in the said proceedings, and it would not be permissible for any party to turn around and apply under Section 8 of the A&C Act.”

¶20

1 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1914

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:14:44

¶23

Subsequently, another Division Bench in M/s Hitachi Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Sh. Shreyans Jain & Anr.² while reiterating the observations in SPML Infra Ltd. ( supra ), also referred to the decision of a coordinate Bench in Ranjana Bhasin vs. Surender Singh³ , wherein it was held that an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act is not maintainable if filed beyond the period prescribed for filing of the written statement.

¶24

In the present case, the application under Section 8 having been filed after the appellant’s right to file written statement was struck off, was not maintainable. Furthermore, the appellant did not challenge the order striking off its right to file the written statement, which has thus attained finality.

¶25

The appellant, therefore, cannot be permitted to circumvent the consequences of its own default by invoking the arbitration clause at a belated stage.

¶26

There is no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is upheld.

¶27

The appeal is dismissed.

¶28

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶29

APRIL 8, 2026 / pmc

¶30

2 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1042

¶31

3 2024 SCC OnLine Del 465

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/04/2026 at 13:14:44

Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Fullerton India) v. Harjinder Kaur & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smfg India Home Finance Co. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Fullerton India) v. Harjinder Kaur & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hardeep Electric Pvt. Ltd. Vs Satish

Suresh Vs Ashok Kumar Jain

Dharmender Singh Vs Shanta Negi & Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs M/S Himesh Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Choti Beti Vs Union of India

A.S.Surendran Nair & Ors. Vs Muthoot Finance Limited & Ors.