SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ
ETA General Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited – Respondent
OSA(CAD) No. 1 of 2024 | CMP Nos.384, 11823 of 2024 & 8271 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Raghavachari, V.Ponnappa Bharathi
For the Respondents: R.Parthasarathy, Arva Merchant

An application for leave to defend in a summary suit constitutes the 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Participating in court proceedings by filing such an application waives the right to subsequently invoke Section 8 to refer the matter to arbitration.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 8 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) - Application for reference to arbitration - Maintainability - Waiver of right - Requirement to move court before submitting first statement on substance of dispute - Where a defendant participates in court proceedings by filing an application for leave to defend a summary suit, such action constitutes the first statement on the substance of the dispute, thereby triggering a waiver of the right to invoke arbitration under Section 8. (Paras 17, 20, 23, 24, 25)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Group of Companies Doctrine - Application to non-signatory subsidiaries - A subsidiary company within a corporate group may be bound by an arbitration agreement signed by the parent company if the nature of the transaction is composite, interlinked, and the conduct of the parties establishes a common intention to bind the signatory and non-signatory entities. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was a distributor for the products of a parent company through various agreements and subsidiary companies. After the business relationship soured and the distributor sought compensation, the respondent company (a subsidiary) filed a summary suit for recovery of money. The appellant, after failing in pre-suit mediation and an initial arbitration attempt, filed an application for leave to defend the summary suit and subsequently moved to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that while the Group of Companies doctrine makes a subsidiary bound by the arbitration agreements of the parent company in principle, the appellant's conduct in filing an application for leave to defend before seeking arbitration amounted to a waiver of its right. The Court determined that special laws like the Arbitration Act take precedence, making an application for leave to defend in a summary suit the equivalent of a first statement on the substance of the dispute.

Issues: Whether the application for leave to defend in a summary suit constitutes the 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' under Section 8; and whether the doctrine of group of companies binds a non-signatory subsidiary to an arbitration agreement.

Ratio Decidendi: In summary suits, the application for leave to defend serves as the first statement on the substance of the dispute. A party cannot participate in judicial proceedings by filing such an application and then subsequently seek a referral to arbitration, as this conduct indicates a waiver of the right to arbitrate. Additionally, non-signatory subsidiaries are bound by arbitration agreements when the transactions are composite, interlinked, and demonstrate a single economic reality.

Result: Appeal dismissed; interim orders vacated.

JUDGMENT

P.Velmurugan J.

1.The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 29.09.2023 made in A.No.5041 of 2022 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.70 of 2022.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit, C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.70 of2022 filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of USD 19,005,310.00 (USD Nineteen Million Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ten) from the appellant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation along with costs.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

(a) The appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and supplying of air-conditioners in India. The respondent company is duly organised under the relevant laws of Thailand and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Principal/Parent Company, viz. Fujitsu General Limited. Fujitsu General Limited [FGL] is a company duly organised and administered under the relevant laws of Japan. Fujitsu General (Asia) Pte.Ltd. [FGA] is a company duly organised and administered under the relevant laws of Singapore. Fujitsu General (India) Pvt.Ltd. [FGI] is a company duly incorporated and administered under the Companies Act, 2013 (India), hereinafter referred to as the FGL Group Companies. The respondent, Fujitsu General (Asia) Pte. Ltd. [FGA], Fujitsu General (India) Pvt. Ltd. [FGI] are the associate/wholly owned subsidiary/group companies of Fujitsu General Limited [FGL], which is the parent/holding company. The said FGL Group Companies including Fujitsu General (Thailand) Company Limited are engaged in the business of chillers, air-conditioners, refrigerators etc., under the brand of "GENERAL" in the relevant geographical places, where they are registered and operating their businesses of manufacturing, distribution, marketing and sales of various products under the brand "GENERAL".

(b) Fujitsu General Limited [FGL], Fujitsu General (Asia) Pte. Ltd [FGA], with an intention to expand their business in the Indian territory, approached and entered into Master Technical License and Distribution Agreement dated 22.12.1999 (the License Agreement) duly executed between Fujitsu General Limited (FGL), Fujitsu General (Asia) Pte. Ltd. with the appellant (ETA General Private Limited), pursuant to which the appellant had been manufacturing, marketing and supplying air conditioners in India. The said license agreement contains an arbitration clause. Though the appellant had closed the manufacturing unit of “General” brands which was situated in Pondicherry, however, under the above said agreement, the respondent continued to supply air-conditioners to the appellant, who have been distributing, marketing and selling "General" Brand air conditioners in India. The appellant continued to settle the accounts with the respondent and its above-named associate, principal/group companies on a regular basis without any delay for more than 21 years.

(c) In view of the business arrangement, the appellant and the parent company of the respondent, Fujitsu General Limited [FGL] and Fujitsu General (Asia) Pte. Ltd. [FGA] together with Fujitsu General Group entered into a Share Holders Agreement dated 31.10.2000, which was amended by an amended Shareholders Agreement dated 31.10.2010. The said Shareholder Agreement contains an arbitration clause. Fujitsu General Limited [FGL], the parent company FGL Group established its subsidiary in India, in and around December 2018 under the name and style "Fujitsu General (India) Private Limited" [FGI]. The entire business transactions with the respondent were purely on the basis of the Master Technical License Distribution Agreement dated 22.12.1999, Shareholders Agreement dated 31.10.2000 and Amended Shareholders Agreement executed by the parent company of the respondent viz., Fujitsu General Limited [FGL], Japan and its wholly owned subsidiary company of Fujitsu General (Asia) PTE. Ltd [FGA], Singapore. In terms of the said agreement, both the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top