The Order of the Court was as follows :

An interesting point has been raised in this revision, which is against the order passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties to the revision had entered into an agreement for dealership of petroleum products. Clause 67 of the agreement provides for resolution of disputes by referring to the sole Arbitrator, the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner was appointed as a dealer of petroleum products by the respondent. Alleging breach of the terms of agreement, the respondent terminated the agreement, by an order dated 20.2.2001. The respondent filed I.A. No. 8807 of 2001 under Section 8(1) of the Act. This application was ordered and therefore, this revision was filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veerapathiran, stated that the application was not maintainable since it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. Further, he also submitted that the termination order was null and void. On 4.5.1999, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. The second show cause notice was issued on 20.10.1999 to which the petitioner had given his detailed reply. Therefore, a dispute arose as to whether the petitioner had committed breach of the agreement, in which case the respondent ought to have referred the matter to arbitration. Instead of this the respondent took law into their own hands and terminated the agreement. When the respondent had themselves given the go-by to the arbitration agreement it is not open to them to now say that the petitioner should have referred the dispute to arbitration. Therefore, according to the learned counsel this petition under Section 8 of the Act is not maintainable. Further, he submitted that Section 8(2) of the Act requires the party to produce the original of the agreement or a duly certified copy thereof and without that the judicial authority referred to in Section 8 should not entertain the application. In this case, according to the learned counsel the order ex-facie would show that the application was accompanied only by a xerox copy of the agreement and only at the time of hearing the respondent had produced the original of the agreement. Inspite of this the Court below had entertained the application which was violative of provisions of Section 8 of the Act. The learned counsel pointed out to the definition of certified copy of the Judicial Dictionary and also to Sections 74 and 75 of the Evidence Act which dealt with what is a certified copy of a public document. Since the xerox copy was not a certified copy as per the provisions of the Evidence Act it ought not to have been accepted. He submitted that since words "shall not be entertained" are used in the section, production of the original is mandatory.The learned counsel referred to Thatha vs. Paru, where a carbon copy was treated as certified copy though it did not contain a certificate to that effect. He referred to if for the purpose that in that case under Section 79 of the Evidence Act, a legal presumption was drawn in favour of the genuineness of the document though it was not in strict compliance that the provisions for certifications of a copy. In that case the words 'duly certified' were explained as copies officially issued under the authority of the Court. The learned counsel submitted that when this copy of the arbitration agreement was not certified by the Manager of the respondent-Corporation it cannot be treated as duly certified copy.

He also referred to Malayalam Plantations Limited, Quilon vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore 1959 AIR(Ker) 34 = 1958 KLT 518 ), where the words "certified copy" came up for consideration and it was held that by long usage, "certified copy" has always been understood as the copy which the party preferring the appeal obtains under Section 76 of the Evidence Act on payment of the necessary fee. So according to t