The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements for references to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, dismissing applications that do not explicitly comply.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

1. 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, l