Greaves Cotton Limited versus United Machinery and Appliances.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s.5 rlw s.8 - Respondent filed a civil suit seeking decree towards loss and damage suffered by it on account of alleged breach of contract on the part of the appellant - High Court issued summons - In respoilse, appellant filed application seeking extension of time to file written . statement and invoked arbitration clause by sending a letter to the respondent - Respondent objected to invocation of arbitration on ground of pendency of civil suit in High Court - Thereafter, appellant filed application u/s. 5 rlw s.8 to get dispute referred to arbitral tribunal - High Court rejected the application on th,e ground that appellant by filing an application for extension of time to file written statement 'submitted first statement on the substance of the dispute' and waived its right to seek arbitration_ - On appeal, held: Merely moving an application seeking further time to file written statement without replying to the allegations of the plaint would not amount to making first statement on the substance of the dispute - Also, it does not appear from the language of s.8(1) of the 1996 Act that legislature intended to include a step like filing simple application of seeking extension of time to file written statement as first statement on the substance of the dispute - Therefore, appellant did not waive right to object to the jurisdiction of judicial authority.

¶10

c

¶11

D

¶12

E

¶13

F

¶14

Allowing the appeal, the Court

¶15

HELD: 1. It is difficult to agree with the High Court that in the present case merely moving an application seeking further time of eight weeks to file the written statement would amount to making first statement on the substance of the dispute. Further, filing of an application without reply to the allegations of the plaint does not constitute first statement on the substance of the dispute. It does not appear from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the Legislature

G

H

193

194

r2o 161 12 s.c.R.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶22

A intended to include such a step like moving simple application of seeking extension of time to file written statement as first statement on the substance of the dispute. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be held that the appellant, by moving an application for extension of time of eight weeks to file written statement, has waived right to object

¶23

B to the jurisdiction of judicial authority. [Para 12) · [199-D-F)

¶24

The impugned order also reflects that before disposing of application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, the High Court has not looked into questions as to whether there is an agreement between the parties; whether disputes which are subject-matter c of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration; and whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration. Therefore, the High Court is requested to decide the application afresh in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in para 19 of the judgment in Booz Allen mu/ D Hamilton Inc. v. SB/ Homes Finance Limited mu/ others except the point, which has already been answered in the present case. [Paras 13, 14] [199-G-H; 200-A, BJ

¶25

Rashtriya !spat Nigam Ltd. and another v. Verma Transport Co. (2006) 7 SCC 275 : 2006 (4) Suppl. E SCR 332; Boaz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SB! Homes Finance Limited and others (2011) 5 SCC 532 : 2011 (7) SCR 310 - relied on.

¶26

Manna Lal Kedia and ors. v. State of Bihar and ors. AIR 2000 Pat 91; - referred to.

F

G

Case Law Reference

AIR 2000 Pat 91 referred to .l?ara 7 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 332 relied on Paras 2011 (7) SCR 310 relied on Para 10 CIVILAPPELLATL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12066 of2016.

¶31

From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2015 of the High Court ofCalcut~a in GA No. 2998 of2015 with CS No. 2 of2015.

¶32

B. Adinarayan Roy, Sr. Adv., Deepak Khurana, Umesh Kumar H Khaitan, Ad vs. for the Appellant.

¶33

195

¶34

GREAVES COTTON LIMITED v. UNITED MACHINERY AND APPLIANCES

¶35

Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Mohan Raj, A Ritesh Agrawal, Advs. for the Respondent.

¶36

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶37

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. I. Leave granted.

¶38

This appeal is directed against order dated 16.09.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in GA No. 2998 of2015 (in CS No. 2 of 2015), whereby said Court has rejected the application moved under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to get the dispute refeiTed to arbitral tribunal.

¶39

B.

¶40

Brief facts of the case are that appellant Greaves Cotton are c manufacturers of, inter alia, diesel engines. Respondent United Machinery and Appliances are manufacturers of diesel generator sets. An agreement containing arbitration clause was executed between them for supply of diesel engines by the appellant to the respondent for using the same in the diesel gensets. Arbitration clause contained in Article 10.1 of agreement dated 02.07.2007 (copy Annexure P-1) reads as under: D

¶41

"l 0.1 Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this Agreement or the validity or the breach thereof shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Greaves. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The venue of arbitration shall be Mumbai. The arbitration proceedings shall, in all other aspects, be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any subsequent statutory enactment in place thereof."

¶42

E

¶43

F

¶44

The plaintiff-respondent filed civil suit (CS No. 2of2015) seeking decree for an amount of Rs.4,92, 76,854/- towards the loss and damages suffered by it on account of alleged breach of contract on the part of defendant-appellant. The High Court, in its original side, issued summons in the suit on 06.01.2015 to the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant G sent communication to the respondent claiming that it was the respondent who has to pay outstanding dues of Rs.1,04,53, 103/- to the appellant. The appellant, in response to the summons, on 07.07.2015 moved an application (copy Annexure P-6) before the High Court seeking extension oftime for eight weeks to file written statement and invoked the arbitration clause contained in the agreement dated 02.07.2007 by sending a letter H

¶45

G

¶46

196

¶47

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶48

f20161 12 S.C.R.

¶49

A dated 08.07.2015 (copy Annexure P-7) to the respondent, in response to which, vide communication dated 13.07.2015 (copy Annexure P-7), it denied the claim of the appellant, and objected to invocation ofarbitration clause on the ground of pendency of civil suit before the High Court. Thereafter, the appellant moved Application GA No. 2998of2015 (copy Annexure P-10) under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration

¶50

8 and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the 1996 Act"), in the suit seeking reference of the disputes between the parties forming the subject-matter of the suit, for arbitration, which is rejected by the High Court on the ground that the appellant has, by moving application for extension of time to file written statement, waived its right to seek arbitration. Hence,

¶51

c this appeal through special leave.

¶52

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶53

Before further discussion, it is just and proper to refer to relevant

¶54

provisions of law applicable to the case. Section 5 of the 1996 Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for

¶55

D the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the said Part of the Act. Sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act, as it existed prior to 23.10.2015, provided that a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration shall, if a party

¶56

E so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the pai1ies to arbitration.

¶57

The issue before us for consideration is whether filing of an application for extension of time to file written statement before a judicial authority constitutes - 'submitting first statement on the substance of F the dispute' or not.

¶58

For appreciating the intention of the Legislature, it is necessary for us to examine the change in law brought about by the 1996 Act. In Manna Lal Kedia and ors. v. State of Bifwr and ors.¹ , comparing the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and Section G 8 of the 1996 Act, High Court of Patna has opined as follows: -

¶59

"I 0. In terms of the Section 34 of the old Act a party was required to apply for reference of the dispute to the arbitrator before filing written statement or taking any other step in the proceeding. The words "or taking any other step" were

¶60

H 'AIR 2000 Pat 91

¶61

GREAVES COTTON LIMITED v. UNITED MACHINERY AND 197 APPLIANCES [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

¶62

interpreted to include even application for adjournment, for filing written statement. This obviously created anomalies, not only frustrating the objectsofarbitration but also resulting in injusticeinmany cases.Inorder to bring about change inthis regardinthe New ActinSection8(I),provision has been made to the effect that the pai1y intending to go in for arbitration must dosoinhis "first statement on the substance ofthe dispute" and not later than that. In other words, only ifinthe first statement on the substanceofthe disputehe doesnotmake such prayerthathe isdebarredfrom making that prayer later. Section8(1)oftheNewAct is, thus, an Improvement upon the provisionsofSection 34of the old Act......."	A B c
8. In_Raslitriy{{/spatNig{{m Ltd.andanother_v.Verma
_TransportCo. ¹,_interpreting the expression "first statement on the substanceofthe dispute", this Cout1 has held as under: -
"36. The expression "first statement on the substanceof the dispute" containedinSection 8( I)ofthe 1996 Act must becontradistinguishedwith theexpression"written . statement". It employs submissionofthe party to the jurisdictionofthe judicial authority. What is, therefore, needed is a finding on the partofthe judicial authority that the party has waived its right to invoke the arbitration clause. Ifan applicationisfiled before actually filing the first statement on the substanceofthe dispute,inour opinion, thepartycannotbe said to havewaivedits rightor acquiesced itself to the jurisdictionofthe court. What is, therefore, materialisas to whether the petitioner has filed his first statement on the substanceofthe disputeornot,if not, his application under Section 8ofthe 1996 Act, may. not be held wholly unmaintainable ..... "	D E F
9. This Courtin_Raslitriya /spatNig{{mLtd._(supra)further held as under: - "42. Waiverofa right on the partofa defendant to the lis must be gathered from the fact situation obtainedineach case.Inthe instant case, the court had already passed an ad interim ex parte injunction. The appellants were bound ' (2006)_1_sec21s	G H

¶63

H

¶64

198

¶65

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶66

r2016112 S.C.R.

¶67

A to respond to the notice issued by the Court. While doing so, they raised.a specific plea of bar of the suit in view of the existence of an arbitration agreement. Having regard to the provisions of the Act, they had, thus, shown their unequivocal intention to question the maintainability of the suit on the aforementioned ground."

¶68

B

¶69

In Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SB/ Homes Fill(lnce Limited mu/ others³ , while dealing with the question, this Court, in paragraph 19 of the judgment, has laid down the law on the similar issue as under: -

c

D

E

"19. Where a suit is filed by one of the parties to an arbitration agreement against the other parties to the arbitration agreement, and "if the defendants file an application under Section 8 stating that the parties shou Id be referred to arbitration, the court Uudicial authority) will have to decide:

¶74

(i) whether there is an arbitration agreement among the parties; (ii) whether all the parties to the suit are pa11ies to the arbitration agreement;

¶75

(iii) whether the disputes which are the subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration agreement; (iv) whether the defendant had applied under Section 8 of the Act before submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute; and

¶76

(v) whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can F be adjudicated and granted in an arbitration."

¶77

This Court in Booz Allen mu/ H(lmi/1011 Inc. (supra), has further observed in paragraph 25 as under: -

¶78

"25. Not only filing of the written statement in a suit, but filing of any statement, application, affidavit by a defendant G prior to the filing of the written statement will be construed as "submission of a statement on the substance of the dispute", if by filing such statement/application/affidavit, the defendant shows his intention to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the court and waives his right to seek

¶79

H '(2011) s sec 532

¶80

199

¶81

GREAVES COTTON LIMITED v. UNITED MACHINERY AND APPLIANCES [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.]

¶82

reference to arbitration. But filing of a reply by a defendant, to an application for temporary injunction/ attachment before judgment/ appointment of Receiver, cannot be considered as submission ofa statement on the substance of the dispute, as that is done to avoid an interim order being made against him."

¶83

A

¶84

B

¶85

In view of the law laid down by this Court, as above, we find it difficult to agree with the High Court that in the present case merely moving an application seeking further time of eight weeks to file the written statement would amount to making first statement on the substance of the dispute. In our opinion, filing of an application without c reply to the allegations of the plaint does not constitute first statement on the substance of the dispute. It does not appear from the language of sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act that the Legislature intended to include such a step like moving simple application of seeking extension of time to file written statement as first statement on the substance of the dispute. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of D the present case, as already narrated above, we are unable to hold that the appellant, by moving an application for extension of time of eight weeks to file written statement, has waived right to object to the jurisdiction of judicial authority ..

¶86

c

¶87

From the order impugned, it also reflects that before disposing of application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act the High Court has not looked into questions as to whether there is an agreement between the parties; whether disputes which are subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration; and whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration. In view of the above, we think it just and proper to request the High Court to decide the application afresh in the light oflaw laid down by this Court in para 19 of the judgment in BoozA/le11 mu/ Hamilto11 J11c. v. SB/ Homes Fitumce Limited and others (supra) except the point, which has already been answered in the present case by us.

¶88

E

¶89

F

¶90

Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned order, passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court is requested to decide the application (GA No. 2998 of2015 in CS No. 2 of2015) in the light of observation, as above. No order as to costs.

¶91

G

¶92

Appeal allowed. H

¶93

Ankit Gyan

Greaves Cotton Limited v. United Machinery and Appliances.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greaves Cotton Limited v. United Machinery and Appliances.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahakari Mandali Ltd. and Ors. versus Dethali Gopalak Vividh Karyakari

Union of India & Anr. versus M/S Meghmani Organics Ltd. & Ors.

Syeda Rahimunnisa versus Malan Bl (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. etc.

Secretary Mahatama Gandhi Mission & Another versus Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Others

S. Sreedhar Reddy & Ors. versus Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia & Ors. versus Bishan Chand Maheshwari & Anr.