While dismissing an application seeking reference of a matter to arbitration, the Calcutta High Court has held that the dismissal or rejection of a plaint would not amount to reference of the subject matter of the suit to arbitration. The High Court further held that the provision under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, being a specific statutory provision, has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with a specific prayer.

The defendant applicant had approached the High Court seeking dismissal of a suit. The Plaint was also sought to be rejected and/or returned. The defendant argued that in view of the operation of the provisions under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the subject matter of the suit should be referred to arbitration.

The Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy held,“Considering the prayers made in the Master’s Summons, it appears to this Court that dismissal or rejection of plaint, as prayed for, would not amount to reference of subject matter of the suit to arbitration. A plaint can be dismissed or rejected under a separate and independent statutory provision principally under Rule 11 to Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Similarly, a plaint can be returned under another different and independent provision of the Code being Rule 10 to Order VII of CPC. The suit can be stayed either as an interim order or under a specific and independent provision of Section 10 of CPC. Therefore, none of the prayers made in the Master’s Summons falls within the purview, scope or meaning of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.”

The Bench further explained, “Provision under Section 8 being a specific statutory provision has to be applied strictly by way of a separate application with specific prayer and it would be of no relevance whether in the written statement, the defendant has raised the issue or not.”

Senior Advocate Abhrajit Mitra represented the Plaintiff, while Advocate Avishek Guha represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the defendant applicant’s case that though the prayers in the Master’s Summons might not have been couched in a manner asking the Court to refer the subject matter of the suit to arbitration, the statements in the supporting affidavit support such contention of the defendant and therefore, the application should be allowed, referring the subject matter of the suit to arbitration.

It was the plaintiff’s case that at the threshold, this is not an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, and the same should be dismissed. It was further submitted that when a specific provision is laid down under a statute, as Section 8 in the instant case, a specific application is to be filed without which the provisions of Section 8 cannot be invoked.

Reasoning

Referring to section 8, the Bench explained that for applying under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, a valid and existing arbitration clause must be present governing the subject matter of the suit, one of the parties to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him has to apply under the said provision and the application must be filed not later than the date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute.

The Bench was of the view that after satisfying the tests laid down under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, if a party to the arbitration agreement applies before a Court, such an applicant has a right to claim the subject matter of the suit to refer to arbitration. The obligation for reference is also mandatory upon the Court, then. “Upon considering the relevant provisions of law, this Court is of the firm view that the instant application has been taken out praying for dismissal, rejection and return of plaint, which are not in compliance of the provisions under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act”, the Bench stated.

Holding that application in question could not be construed and accepted as an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, the Bench dismissed the same.

Cause Title: Jagannath Heights Pvt Ltd v. M/s Sammaan Capital Limited (Case No.: IA NO. GA-COM/2/2025)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Abhrajit Mitra, Advocates Satadeep Bhattacharyya, Samriddha Sen, Arijeet Bera

Defendant:Advocates Avishek Guha, Shounak Mukhopadhyay, Ankush Majumdar, Sonal Agarwal, Rayani Bhattacharyya

Click here to read/download Order







Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.