The limitation for filing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act aligns with the time for submitting the written statement, and failure to comply results in a waiver of the arbitration clause.

ORDER. :

1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Utangale, learned Counsel appears for Applicant and submits that the objections have been removed and it has already been approved but registered number is yet to be obtained.

2. Registry to expeditiously award the registered number.

3. This Interim Application filed by the Defendant-State Bank of India is seeking to relegate the parties to the arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “said Act”).

4. Mr. Utangale, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant and draws this Court’s attention to page 43 of the Interim Application and in particular to sub-clause (m)(b)(i) of the Agreement between the parties which pertains to dispute resolution and submits that the said clause clearly provides that any claim, difference, dispute or controversy arising between the parties shall be referred to and settled by an Arbitrator and that therefore, under the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act, this Court refer the matter to the Arbitration.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Shah, learned Counsel appears for the Plaintiff and submits that the said Application is time barred and draws this Court’s attention to Section 8(1) of the said Act. Ms. Shah submits that the time period for filing of Application under Section 8 of the said Act should not be later than the date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute.

6. Ms. Shah submits that in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Thangavelu. R. Vs. Shri Santosh J. Joseph and Anr., Civil Revision Petition No. 265 of 2022(IO) dated 12^th December, 2024,relying upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of SSIPL Lifestyle Private Limited Vs. Vama Apparels (India) Private Limited and Anr., [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1667.], the words “the date of” means that the date of filing the written statement in the suit which should be considered as the limitation period for filing a Section 8 Application under the said Act, and submits that in the facts of the case the period for filing the same having expired, the application ought to be rejected.

7. Mr. Utangale, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant- Defendant submits that his client has already filed an Interim Application (L) No. 10528 of 2025 for setting aside the no written statement order, however, fairly submitting that the said Application has been filed after the filing of this Application under Section 8 of the said Act.

8. Mr. Utangale, however, submits that this Court may consider the Application under Section 8 of the said Act and relegate the parties to arbitration in view of the arbitration clause in the Agreement between the parties.

9. I have heard the learned Counsel and considered their submissions.

10. I have also perused the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri Thangavelu. R. Vs. Shri Santosh J. Joseph and Anr. (supra) and also the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of SSIPL Lifestyle Private Limited Vs. Vama Apparels (India) Private Limited and Anr. (supra) and I am in agreement with the view taken by the said two High Courts on the interpretation of the Section 8 of the said Act with regard to the words “the date of” appearing in Section 8(1) of the said Act.

11. Section 8 of the said Act is usefully quoted as under:-

“8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement —(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 to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is acco