Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J. Shelat, J
Techtix Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Megastone Logipark Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6878 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rasesh H. Parikh, Hemang H. Parikh
For the Respondents: Manish J. Patel

An application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable even without a certified copy of the arbitration agreement, provided the agreement is already on record and its existence is not disputed by the parties, as the court's primary duty is to enforce the arbitration mandate.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Filing of application under Section 8 without certified copy of arbitration agreement - Where existence of arbitration agreement is not disputed and the agreement is already on record through the pleadings of the parties, the failure to produce a certified copy does not mandate rejection of the application - Such a requirement is procedural and not substantive when the document is already before the court. (Paras 14, 18, 19)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference - Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction cannot interfere with trial court orders unless there is manifest jurisdictional error or gross illegality - Mere possibility of another view is insufficient for interference. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner (original plaintiff) filed a civil suit for recovery of money pursuant to a work contract. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to refer the dispute to arbitration as per the contractual clause. The trial court allowed the application and relegated the parties to arbitration despite the lack of a certified copy of the arbitration agreement with the defendant's application.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the application was maintainable as it was filed under Section 8 of the Act, 1996. The court found that the procedural requirement under Section 8(2) of the Act is satisfied if the arbitration agreement is already on record and its existence remains undisputed by the parties. The court further held that there was no jurisdictional error in the trial court's order referring the parties to arbitration.

Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 8 of the Act can be maintained if not accompanied by a certified copy of the arbitration agreement. 2. Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error in relegating the parties to arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an arbitration agreement is brought to the notice of the court and its existence is not disputed, the court is under a mandatory obligation to refer the parties to arbitration. Procedural non-compliance, such as the absence of a certified copy of the agreement, does not defeat the legislative intent where the evidence of the arbitration clause is already available on record.

Result: Writ application rejected.

Table of Content
1. substitution of legal heirs and procedural rules under civil procedure code. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of contractual dispute and invocation of arbitration clause. (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments concerning mandatory requirement of certified arbitration agreement and jurisdictional ouster. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's power to treat an application as being filed under section 8 of the arbitration act. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. compliance with section 8(2) of the arbitration act when the agreement is already on record. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. court's limited supervisory jurisdiction and exclusion of time for limitation under section 14. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. final confirmation that existence of arbitration agreement triggers mandatory arbitration referral. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Approved for Reporting	Yes	No
	Yes

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 3 pointed out that during the pendency of the present writ application, respondent No.2 died, who happens to be one of the Director of respondent No.1-Company.

2. As such there is no need to bring legal heirs of deceased – respondent No.2, inasmuch as, he being only director of the respondent No.1-company and during his life time, though respondent No.2 being served in the present proceeding, he never appeared and contested the matter. So, placing reliance upon the provisions of Order 22 rule 4(4) of CPC, this writ application can be proceeded on merit, in absence of his legal heirs.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Manish Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3. Though served, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

4. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.02.2023 passed below Exh.19 in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kheda (Annexure I) and restore the Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2020 in the interest of justice.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass necessary order/ direction under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Respondents for committing fraud with the Hon'ble Court and misguiding the Hon'ble Civil Court, Kheda by submitting an application wherein Respondent No.1 and 2 had not signed application below Exh. 19 and Respondent No.3 had submitted affidavit prior preparation of the application below Exh. 19 in Special Civil Suit no. 20 of 2020 in the interest of justice;

(C) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 passed below Exh.19 in Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kheda (Annexure I) in the interest of justice;

(D) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct respondents not to damage and transfer the goods and material lying on the site in question in the interest of justice;

(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such other and further reliefs as deemed fit, just and proper in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of Justice.”

Short Facts of the case.

5. The petitioner herein is original plaintiff, whereas respondents are original defendants of Special Civil Suit No. 20 of 2020 instituted before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda.

5.1 It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a construction agreement in form of work contract executed between the plaintiff and defendants and despite fulfilled its obligation, the amount claimed in the suit remain due and payable by the defendants.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 13761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADMaulik J. Shelat, JTechtix Engineers – AppellantVersusMegastone Logipark Pvt. Ltd. – RespondentR/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6878 of 2023

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Maulik J. Shelat, J
Techtix Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Megastone Logipark Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6878 of 2023