Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar
Murshidabad Zilla Parishad – Appellant
Versus
Asian Health Care Development Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J .
1. The present two appeals have been preferred against the same order. In FMAT 167 of 2025, the grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 has been assailed whereas in FMA 816 of 2025, the rejection of an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the defendant no. 1/appellant has been challenged under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.
2. The main premise on which the application under Section 8 was refused by the learned Trial Judge was that the defendant no. 2 was a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement and as such, the parameters of Section 8 are not satisfied.
3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 also took an objection to the effect that the original lease agreement containing the arbitration clause (Clause 28) was not produced.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1/appellant argues that the principal relief in the suit has been sought against the defendant no. 1. Moreover, the entire gamut of the reliefs sought in the suit revolves around the lease agreement containing the arbitration clause. Relief ‘A’ in the suit is for declaration that
Disputes arising from a lease agreement containing an arbitration clause can be referred to arbitration even when a non-signatory is involved, provided the claims are within the scope of the arbitrat....
If there are more than one agreements and all are integrally interconnected, and the main agreement contains arbitration clause, to fulfill one single commercial project, all the agreements and parti....
Rejection of plaint – When a statute prescribes to do certain thing in a certain manner, the thing has to be done in same manner or not at all – All other modes are expressly forbidden.
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements for references to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, dismissing applications that do not explicitly comply.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the legislative intent to promote arbitration, the limited power of prima facie review at the reference stage, and the rejection of the Law Com....
A settlement agreement that explicitly supersedes an original contract and lacks an arbitration clause is not subject to arbitration, reinforcing the principle of separability.
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has a mandatory effect, and once the conditions are fulfilled, the court is obligated to refer the parties to arbitration.
Disputes capable of being adjudicated by the Civil Court are generally amenable to arbitration, unless expressly excluded. The importance of appointing an eligible arbitrator was also emphasized.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the Tenancy Agreement and the Consolidated Charges Agreement under Section 8 of the Arbitration and....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
