Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J.
Jagannath Heights Pvt. Ltd. – Plaintiff
versus
M/s Sammaan Capital Limited
(Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.) – Defendant
IA No. GA-COM 2 of 2025 in
CS-COM 801 of 2024
Decided on 9.1.2026
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 8 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – Commercial suit – Parties have admitted existence of arbitration clause – 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 – Provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in written statement, defendant has raised the issue or not – Section 8 of Arbitration Act requires strict construction and interpretation – Liberal construction or interpretation is not permitted – Any liberal construction or interpretation of said provisions, would defeat legislative intent behind enactment of provisions – Instant application has been taken out praying for dismissal, rejection and return of plaint, which are not in compliance of provisions under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Instant application cannot be construed and accepted as application filed under Section 8 of Arbitration Act. (Paras 13, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29)
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT [IN COURT]
Aniruddha Roy, J.—
Facts:
The defendant is the applicant herein.
2. Through the Master’s Summons taken out by the defendant, the defendant has prayed for following reliefs:—
(a) The present suit, being C.S. (COM) 801 of 2024 [Jagannath Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Samman Capital Limited (Formerly Known as Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited)] be dismissed in limine;
(b) Plaint in C.S. (COM) 801 of 2024 [Jagannath Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Samman Capital Limited (Formerly Known as Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited)] be rejected and/or returned;
(c) The present suit, being C.S. (COM) 801 of 2024 [Jagannath Heights Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Samman Capital Limited (Formerly Known as Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited)], be stayed;
(d) Interim and ad interim order(s) in terms of prayers above;
(e) Such further or other Order or Orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
3. In support of the Master’s Summons, the defendant has filed its affidavit, to which the plaintiff has filed its affidavit in opposition and the defendant again filed its affidavit in reply.
4. Both the plaintiff and the defendant admit the existence of the arbitration clause in the relevant contract between them arising whereof, the plaintiff has instituted the suit.
5. Though the prayers from the Master’s Summons, it would appear that the defendant has firstly prayed for dismissal of the suit in limine, secondly, for rejection and/or return of plaint and thirdly, for stay of the civil suit but referring to the statements made in the supporting affidavit, principally in paragraphs 5 and 8 thereunder, the defendant has argued that in view of operation of the provisions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”), the subject matter of the suit should be referred to arbitration.
Submissions:
6. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant/applicant submits that the provisions laid down under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act mandates the Court to refer the subject matter of the suit for arbitration once a party to the arbitration agreement applies for the same. Referring to the statements made in the supporting affidavit, principally in paragraphs 5 and 8, Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant/applicant submits that though the prayers in the Master’s Summons might not have been couched in a manner asking the Court to refer the subject matter of the suit to arbitration but the statements in the supporting affidavit support such contention of the defendant and therefore, the application should be allowed referring the subject matter of the suit to arbitration.
7. Mr. Shounak Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate submits that when a Court considers an application, it is the duty of the Court to consider the substantive substance of the application as a whole and not in piecemeal. If the instant application is considered in its true spirit, effect and substance, it is an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and immediately, the subject matter of the suit shall be referred to arbitration. In support, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court In the matter of: Madhu Sudan Sharma and Others Vs. Omaxe Ltd. reported at 2023 SCC OnLine Del. 7136. He has also cited a judgment of the Hon’ble Telangana High Court In the matter of: Naolin Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. Kalpana Industries reported at 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1618.
8. Referring to the last prayer made in the Master’s Summons, learned Counsel submits that relief can be moulded and granted in favour of the applicant.
9. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Senior Advocate being ably assisted by Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya and Mr. Samriddha Sen, learned Advocates appearing for the plaintiff submits, at the threshold, that this is not an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. The prayers are for rejection and di
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 point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the civil court to refer the parties to arbitration upon satisfaction of the prerequisites under Section 8 of the Arb....
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.
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 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....
The court held that disputes regarding settled amounts are not arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless specifically covered by the arbitration agreement.
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
