TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application to refer the parties to arbitration was maintainable when it was filed after the first objection on the merits had already been taken before the judicial forum. (ii) Whether the application complied with the statutory requirement of filing the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.
Issue (i): Whether an application to refer the parties to arbitration was maintainable when it was filed after the first objection on the merits had already been taken before the judicial forum.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires a party seeking referral to arbitration to invoke the remedy not later than the date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Once a party has entered the proceedings on merits and has taken objections without raising the arbitration plea at the first available opportunity, the later invocation of the arbitral route is barred by the express timing requirement. The application here was moved belatedly after participation in the company proceedings on merits, so it could not be treated as a timely invocation of the arbitration objection.
Conclusion: The objection based on arbitration was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the application complied with the statutory requirement of filing the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof.
Analysis: The statutory condition for entertaining such an application is strict and mandatory. The record showed that neither the original agreement nor a legally acceptable certified copy was filed. An authenticated copy was not treated as the equivalent of a certified copy for this purpose. Since the threshold requirement for entertainment of the application was not satisfied, the application failed independently on this ground as well.
Conclusion: The application was non-maintainable for non-compliance with the document requirement.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was devoid of merit because the arbitral referral request was both belated and procedurally defective, so the order refusing to drop the company proceedings was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A referral application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed at the first available opportunity and must be accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy, failing which it is not entertainable.
TaxTMI 
