Arbitration reference under Section 8: Article 227 interference is limited, and a copied agreement may suffice if authenticity is undisputed.

The Delhi HC stated that an order allowing reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is ordinarily not amenable to supervisory interference under Article 227 because the Act contemplates only a prima facie examination and leaves jurisdictional objections to the arbitral tribunal. It also noted that an earlier arbitration clause may be carried forward into a later sale deed by incorporation, and the absence of an express clause in the later deed does not by itself negate the earlier agreement. A Section 8 application was held maintainable on the basis of a copy of the arbitration agreement where its genuineness was not disputed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lies against an order allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (ii) Whether the arbitration clause stood novated or displaced by the later sale deed. (iii) Whether an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained on the basis of a copy of the arbitration agreement when its genuineness was not disputed.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India lies against an order allowing an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as conferring finality on an order referring parties to arbitration, with Section 37 providing an appeal only against refusal to refer and not against an order allowing reference. The scope of Section 8, especially after amendment, was treated as requiring only a prima facie view and leaving questions of jurisdiction and validity open before the arbitral tribunal under Section 16. The policy of minimal judicial intervention during arbitration was held to apply with equal force to supervisory interference under Article 227.

Conclusion: The petition under Article 227 was held not maintainable against the impugned order.

Issue (ii): Whether the arbitration clause stood novated or displaced by the later sale deed.

Analysis: The later sale deed was construed as incorporating the earlier buyer's agreement unless its terms were inconsistent with that agreement. Mere absence of an express arbitration clause in the sale deed was held not to amount to a variance or to a negation of the earlier arbitration agreement. The reference clause in the sale deed therefore operated to carry forward the arbitration clause contained in the earlier agreement.

Conclusion: The arbitration agreement was held to have been incorporated and not novated.

Issue (iii): Whether an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained on the basis of a copy of the arbitration agreement when its genuineness was not disputed.

Analysis: Section 8 permits reference when the application is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy, and also accommodates cases where only a copy is produced. As the document's authenticity was not disputed, the objection based on non-production of the original was treated as without merit.

Conclusion: The Section 8 application was held to be maintainable on the copy produced.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order referring the dispute to arbitration failed on maintainability and on merits, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order allowing reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is ordinarily not amenable to supervisory interference under Article 227 where the Act permits only a prima facie examination and preserves arbitral competence to decide jurisdictional objections; an earlier arbitration clause may be carried forward by incorporation in a later document, and a true copy of the arbitration agreement suffices under Section 8 when its genuineness is undisputed.

---