The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the court to refer parties to arbitration when there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court also emphasized the requirements for acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

1. Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 08.07.2015 delivered in Money Appeal No. 02 of 2013 by the District Judge, Unokoti Judicial District, Kailashahar, as he then was, whereby the judgment dated 10.09.2013 delivered in Money Suit 04 of 2012 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Unokoti, Kailashahar has been affirmed.

3. While admitting this appeal by the order dated 01.03.2016, the following substantial questions of law were framed:

(1) Whether the finding of the appellate Court in deciding the period of limitation taking into account Exbt.-8 was according to law?

(2) Whether the Civil suit was barred in view of an agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration?

(3) Whether the finding of the appellate Court suffers from perversity?

4. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has at the very outset submitted that in exercise leave granted by the said order dated 01.03.2016, she would further specify the substantial question of law having regard to amendment carried out in the written statement by incorporating paragraph-9, where is has been specifically stated that in terms of the agreement under reference, the work was to be executed within 45 (forty five) days. The work was completed and the measurement was taken. Thereafter the bill was prepared for an amount of Rs. 2,75,245/- and that amount was paid to the plaintiff by the Bill No. ED-V/KLS/39 dated 18.06.2008. Thus, the respondent does not have any outstanding on account of the said agreement.

5. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has further submitted that that claim has been corroborated by DW-1 by virtue of para-3 of the examination-in-chief and that part was not contested in the examination-in-chief. That apart, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has submitted that the trial court has committed a serious illegality by relying on the correspondence dated 30.11.2009 (Exbt.8) where there is no acknowledgement in respect of liability of the defendant-appellant and by relying that letter for purpose of determining the limitation, both the courts below have committed further illegality having acted in contrast to the provisions of law. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has also asserted that there is no dispute that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement under No. ED-V/TR/30/2006-07 dated 08.02.2007 (Exbt.B). The said arrangement has clearly been provided by clause 47.01. There is no dispute in this regard.

6. According to Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel the suit should have been dismissed for existence of the arbitration clause. After some interaction, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has fairly admitted that the provisions of Section-8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which is applicable in the suit, has not been complied with. Section-8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that 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 applied 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. It further provides that the application referred to under sub-section (1) of the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof. It is provided further that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to