Karnataka High Court
India Lease Development Limited And ... vs Thimmakka on 12 April, 2002
Equivalent citations: AIR2003KANT97, ILR2002KAR4583, 2002(5)KARLJ551, AIR 2003 KARNATAKA 97, 2002 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 3056, 2002 (49) ARBI LR 136, (2002) ILR (KANT) (3) 4583, (2002) 5 KANT LJ 551, (2002) 49 ARBILR 136
ORDER G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners.
2. This is defendants' revision under Section 115 of the CPC. On their appearance, the defendants filed I.A. No. 2 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act'), requesting the Court for referring the parties to arbitration. Admittedly, the defendants have not filed their written statements so far. According to the Court below, the defendants had not filed the original arbitration agreement or the certified copy thereof along with I.A. No. 2. By the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the interlocutory application on two grounds. Firstly, for the reason that no application under Section 8 of the Act is entertainable unless the defendants file their first statement on the substance of the dispute. Secondly, that as required under Sub-section (2) of Section 8, neither the original arbitration agreement nor a duly certified copy thereof has been filed with the application.
3. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is appropriate to reproduce Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act, which reads as under:
"(1) A judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration".
4. A reading of the above section makes it abundantly clear that the application for referring the parties to the arbitration can be filed at any time but not later than when the first statement of substance of dispute is filed. Therefore, an application under Section 8(1) can be filed at any time prior to or at the time of filing the written statement. Therefore, the first ground given by the Court below for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is clearly contrary to the provisions contained in Section 8(1) of the Act.
5. So far as the second ground is concerned, there is a specific finding by the Trial Court that the defendants had not filed either the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. Even in the present revision petition the petitioners have not specifically stated that the Trial Court has committed an error of record in stating the said fact. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act specifically provides that an application for referring the parties to arbitration "shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order under Section 115 of the CPC. The revision petition is, accordingly dismissed.