TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses revision petition due to untimely Section 8 application, CMP closed without costs</h1> The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court's decision to reject the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and ... - Issues Involved:1. Dismissal of application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.2. Interpretation of 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' under Section 8.3. Whether the word 'shall' in Section 8 should be construed as 'may'.Detailed Analysis:1. Dismissal of Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act:The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner Society, seeking to restrain them from conducting a foreign joy tour. The petitioner, invoking the arbitration clause in the Society's bye-laws, filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking to refer the matter to arbitration. The lower court dismissed this application, leading to the present revision.2. Interpretation of 'First Statement on the Substance of the Dispute' under Section 8:The petitioner argued that their application under Section 8 was timely as it was filed before submitting their first statement on the substance of the dispute. They contended that merely contesting an interim injunction does not constitute a first statement. The respondent countered that the term 'statement' is not limited to a written statement and that the petitioner's counter to the interim injunction application effectively addressed the substance of the dispute. The court examined the content of the counter filed by the petitioner, noting that it addressed key issues related to the Society's objectives and the legality of the foreign tour. The court concluded that this counter constituted the first statement on the substance of the dispute, thus rendering the Section 8 application untimely.3. Whether the Word 'Shall' in Section 8 Should be Construed as 'May':The respondent argued that the word 'shall' in Section 8 should be interpreted as 'may,' allowing judicial discretion. The court acknowledged this argument but chose not to decide on it, instead focusing on the timeliness of the Section 8 application. The court held that the application was not maintainable as it was filed after the petitioner had already submitted their first statement on the substance of the dispute.Conclusion:The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower court's decision to reject the application under Section 8. The court emphasized that the petitioner's counter in the interim injunction application constituted the first statement on the substance of the dispute, thereby making the Section 8 application untimely. Consequently, the court did not find it necessary to address the discretionary nature of the word 'shall' in Section 8. The CMP 1811 of 2001 was also closed, with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
