Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
IDFC First Bank Limited and Another – Appellants
Versus
Shyamsundar Distributor and Another – Respondents
FMA No. 1389 of 2025, IA No. CAN 1 of 2025
Decided On : 18-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appealing trial court orders dismissing section 8 arbitration applications due to expiration of limitation for written statement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant contends that time for filing written statement was extended by court and hence right to move section 8 application remains valid. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent argues that failure to file written statement within statutory limits constitutes waiver of the right to refer disputes to arbitration. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. factual context of loan agreement, foreclosure disputes, and the subsequent initiation of the civil suit. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. trial court's reasoning that failing to file the first statement of defence within time operates as a waiver of section 8 application. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. legal standard for section 8 arbitration application and the mandatory timeline for filing the first statement of substance. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. judicial review of precedents regarding waiver of arbitration and timelines for filing written statement under order viii of cpc. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. court upholds dismissal of arbitration application due to excessive delay and waiver of rights. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.
1. Order No. 12 dated July 10, 2025 passed by learned Judge, Vth Bench, City Civil Court in Title Suit No. 2334 of 2023 has been assailed in the present appeal at the behest of the defendant in the suit.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application under Section 5 and Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed on behalf of the defendant in the suit on the ground that the same was filed by the defendant beyond the period of limitation prescribed for filing written statement. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge, on account of failure of the defendant/appellant in submitting his written statement, also struck off the defence of appellant in the suit with an exception of right to cross-examine the witnesses, to be produced on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent.
3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the disputes covered under T.S. No. 2334 of 2023 were squarely covered under arbitration agreement dated March 31, 2018 duly executed by and between the parties. The agreement dated March 31, 2018 contained a valid arbitration clause and therefore, the disputes ought to have been referred to arbitration as per the terms of the loan agreement. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the learned Trial Court was under obligation to refer the parties to arbitration on the basis of a valid arbitration agreement existing between the parties.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant also submitted that the civil suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in an attempt to defeat the legitimate claim of the appellant/defendant overlooking the arbitration agreement. It was also contended by learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order, did not take into consideration the fact that by orders dated April 10, 2024, June 14, 2024 and August 21, 2024, the learned Trial Judge had itself extended the time to file a written statement in terms of the provisions of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. Learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the learned Trial Judge did not consider that the application under Section 5 and 8 of the Act of 1996 was filed prior to filing of the first statement on the substance of disputes i.e. a written statement. It was further submitted that the learned Judge did not consider that by its order dated March 6, 2025 the suit was taken off from the ex parte board and thereby providing the appellant an opportunity to present its case by filing a written statement in the suit. If that be so, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the appellant
An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed before the first written statement and within the prescribed limitation period; otherwise, it is not maintainable.
A party must apply for arbitration before submitting its first statement; once the opportunity to file a written statement is closed, so is the right to arbitration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party forfeits its right to file an application under Section 8 of the A&C Act if it fails to do so within the time available for filing the....
A party forfeits the right to apply under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if it fails to file within the time allowed for submitting a written statement.
The court established that a party does not forfeit its right to apply for arbitration under Section 8 even after the expiration of the time to file a written statement, provided there are intervenin....
The court established that a formal application under section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory for referring parties to arbitration, and failure to comply with this requireme....
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 o....
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
