The High Court of Calcutta, while allowing a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 7th July 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge vide which it rejected the application filed by the present petitioner/defendant filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act read with Section 5 of the Act of 1996, held that the petitioner/defendant filed the certified copy of the original agreement duly attested by the Notary Public which in terms of the law cannot be said to be a not duly certified copy of the original agreement as required under the provision of the Act.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit with a prayer for declaration, injunction, and consequential relief against the present petitioner before the Trial Court. After receiving the summons the present petitioner entered appearance in that suit and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 5 of the Act of 1996 with a prayer to refer the matter before the arbitrator to resolve the disputes cropped up in between them. The said application filed by the defendant was rejected by the Trial Court. An appeal was preferred which was allowed and the matter was remanded back. However, the Trial Court again rejected the application under Section 8. Hence, the present application.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the present petitioner filed a duly certified copy of the original agreement attested by the Notary Public, which is to be said duly certified copy of the original agreement in view of the legal proposition as settled by this Court. He argued that while passing the impugned order learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try and determine the said suit and the same may be referred to the arbitrator for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that in passing the impugned order learned Trial Court held that the defendant/petitioner failed to produce either the original or the certificate copy of the agreement as required under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The court observed that the petitioner/defendant filed the certified copy of the original agreement duly attested by the Notary Public which in terms of the law cannot be said to be a not duly certified copy of the original agreement as required under the provision of the Act.
The Court said that after getting a summons from the Trial Court the petitioner as defendant entered an appearance in the said suit and filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act with a prayer to refer the matter before the arbitrator over the disputes cropped up in between the parties and from the arbitration clause it is clear that all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of or in relation to this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1996.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, allowing the petition, held that when there is a valid arbitration clause in the agreement on mutual consent of the parties to the contract, the Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration on satisfying all other ingredients as mandated under the Act of 1996.
Case Title: M/S Fullerton India Credit Company Limited vs Ms. Manju Khati
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Biswas
Case No.: C.O. No. 3689 of 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shaunak Mukherjee
Advocate for the Respondent: Not Mentioned
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
